WALKER v. CLINCH COUNTY GEORGIA et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
PATRICIA WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLINCH COUNTY, GEORGIA, and
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.
____________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO:
7:25-cv-196–WLS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 20) (“Motion”).
Therein, pro se Plaintiff requests the Court vacate the July 8, 2026 Order (Doc. 18) dismissing
Defendant Farmers Home Administration (“FHA”) from this action for failure to comply
with the Court’s prior Orders (Docs. 15, 17) requiring Plaintiff to file evidence on or before
June 26, 2026, that the FHA had been served with a Summons and Complaint or that the
FHA had waived service.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint (Doc. 1) against FHA and Clinch County, Georgia
(“Clinch County”) on December 22, 2025. On March 26, 2026, she filed a motion (Doc. 13)
requesting the Court provide her with guidance as to the proper defendants to her action and
guidance as to serving such defendants. By Order (Doc. 14) entered March 30, 2026, the Court
denied Plaintiff’s motion explaining that it could not act as her lawyer or provide legal advice
and services to assist her in prosecuting her case. The Court reminded Plaintiff that it is her
responsibility to prosecute her case, but noted that if Plaintiff wished time to obtain counsel,
that the Court would, upon written motion, grant a reasonable period of time to do so.
When Plaintiff had still not served the FHA, on May 4, 2026, the Court entered an
Order (Doc. 15) requiring Plaintiff to file evidence of returned Summons executed or waived
and/or show cause no later than May 18, 2026, why the Complaint should not be dismissed,
without prejudice, as to the FHA for failure to serve such Defendant. Plaintiff was warned
Case 7:25-cv-00196-WLS Document 21 Filed 07/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
that failure to respond to or comply with the Court’s Order would subject her case to dismissal,
without prejudice, as to the FHA without further notice or proceeding.
Plaintiff did not timely comply with the Court’s May 4, 2026 Order. However, the
Court noted that on May 11, 2026, Plaintiff had a Summons reissued to the FHA. While such
action was not strictly in compliance with the Court’s May 4, 2026 Order, on May 27, 2026,
the Court entered an Order (Doc. 17) allowing Plaintiff until June 26, 2026, within which to
file evidence of returned Summons executed or waived and/or show cause why the Complaint
should not be dismissed as to Defendant FHA for failure to serve. Again, Plaintiff was noticed
that failure to respond or comply with the May 27, 2026 Order would subject her case to
dismissal, without prejudice, as to the FHA without further notice or proceeding.
When Plaintiff had still failed to comply with or respond to the May 27, 2026 Order,
on July 8, 2026, the Court entered its Order (Doc. 18) dismissing, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s
Complaint as to the FHA.
Plaintiff now requests reconsideration of the July 8, 2026 Order because she has
evidence in the form of returned summonses executed that the Office of the General Counsel
United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) was served on May 28, 2026 (Doc. 20-3),
and that the Office of the United States Attorney, Middle District of Georgia (“OUSA”), was
served on June 4, 2026 (Doc. 20-4). Plaintiff acknowledges that she failed to timely file the
returned summonses executed as required by the Court’s Orders, but requests the Court
accept these documents as late-filed proofs of service on the USDA and OUSA. She further
requests an additional twenty-one days to complete such other service as required by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1), (2). The Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed proof of service
on the Attorney General of the United States per Rule 4(i)(1), (2).
Under the Local Rules of this Court, motions for reconsideration shall not be filed as
a matter of routine practice. M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. Motions for reconsideration, whether
considering final or non-final judgments, are within “the sound discretion of the district
judge.” Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 805–06 (11th Cir.
1993). It is the practice of this Court, in both civil and criminal cases, to grant a motion for
reconsideration only when the movant timely demonstrates that: (1) there has been an
intervening change in the law; (2) new and previously unavailable evidence has been discovered
through the exercise of due diligence; or (3) the court made a clear error of law. McCoy v. Macon
Case 7:25-cv-00196-WLS Document 21 Filed 07/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Water Auth., 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997). “A motion for reconsideration is
not an opportunity for the moving party . . . to instruct the court on how the court ‘could have
done it better’ the first time.” Pres. Endangered Areas of Cobb’s Hist., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of
Eng’rs, 916 F. Supp. 1557, 1560 (N.D. Ga. 1995), aff’d, 87 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996).
Courts in the Eleventh Circuit “liberally read briefs filed by pro se litigants.” Reeves v.
DSI Sec. Servs., 331 Fed. App’x 659, 661 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (citing Lorisme v. I.N.S.,
129 F.3d 1441, 1444 n.3 (11th Cir. 1997)); see GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359,
1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that Federal courts must “show a leniency to pro se litigants not
enjoyed by those with the benefit of a legal education”), overruled on other grounds by, Swann v. S.
Health Partners, Inc., 388 F.3d 834 (11th Cir.2004). However, such leniency does not require
courts to ignore the Rules; “a party who proceeds pro se must comply with the same procedural
rules that other litigants must follow.” Diaz v. AT&T Mobility, No. 1:10-CV-3356, 2013 WL
12098747, at *3-4 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2013), adopted by, 2013 WL 12097948 (N.D. Ga. Aug.
9, 2013). In summary, “[c]ourts show leniency to pro se litigants, however, pro se litigants are
still required to conform to the procedural rules, and the court is not required to rewrite
deficient pleadings.” Jacox v. Dep’t of Def., 291 Fed. App’x 318, 318 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam)
(citing GJR Invs., 132 F.3d at 1369). Further, pro se litigants are required to comply with a
Court’s orders. Plaintiff has offered no reason or excuse for her failure to file documents she
apparently possessed even in the face of an Order of this Court that she do so. Plaintiff was
given multiple opportunities to serve the FHA and file proof of that service in the Record of
this case and failed to do so.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 21st day of July 2026.
/s/W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:25-cv-00196-WLS Document 21 Filed 07/21/26 Page 3 of 3