ATMORE v. BIBB COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WILLIE JAMES ATMORE, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 5:25-cv-519-CAR-ALS
:
BIBB COUNTY LAW 	:
ENFORCEMENT CENTER, 	:
et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
________________________________ 	:
ORDER
Presently pending before the Court are the claims pro se Plaintiff Willie James
Atmore, an individual in the Central State Hospital in Milledgeville, Georgia, seeking relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 22, 2026, the Court struck Plaintiff’s Complaint
for failing to sign it in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, dismissed this
case, and entered judgment (ECF Nos. 4, 5). 	Plaintiff has since filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order of dismissal (ECF No. 7) and a motion requesting a jury trial
to be scheduled for February 4, 2026 (ECF No. 8).
In light of the Court’s duty to liberally construe pro se pleadings, and because final
judgment has been entered, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
as one to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Castro
v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82 (2003) (noting that “[f]ederal courts sometimes will
ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the
Case 5:25-cv-00519-CAR-ALS Document 9 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 6

2
motion in order to place it within a different legal category” for reasons including the
creation of “a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion and its
underlying legal basis” and the avoidance of “an inappropriately stringent application of
formal labeling requirements”). 	“The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are
newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” 	Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d
1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116,
1119 (11th Cir. 1999)). 	Such motions cannot be used “to relitigate old matters, raise
argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
Id. (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir.
2005)).
Plaintiff has filed the same motion in at least three of his pending cases. See ECF
No. 7 at 1. 	As appears relevant to this case, Plaintiff suggests that he could not comply
with the Court’s December 2, 2025 Order because he did not receive that Order until
December 12, 2025. Id. at 2, 3. Even if that is true, however, Plaintiff still had plenty of
time to deliver either a signed Complaint or a motion for an extension of time to prison
officials for mailing. 	Under the “mailbox rule” the Court generally deems a prisoner
document filed on the date the plaintiff delivers it to prison officials for mailing. See, e.g.,
Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 783 (11th Cir. 1993). Absent evidence to the contrary,
it is assumed that a document is delivered to prison authorities on the date the prisoner
signed it. 	Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). 	Thus,
Plaintiff’s response to the December 2, 2025 Order would have been considered timely if
he had signed it on or before December 19, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (allowing three
Case 5:25-cv-00519-CAR-ALS Document 9 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 6

3
additional days to comply where service is made by mail). 	Plaintiff did not submit any
response for more than a month, nor does he clearly explain why he did not do so. Although
he states that officials at Central State “injected [him] with mixed liquids” on December
25, 2025, ECF No. 7 at 2, it is not clear why this injection would have prevented him from
responding at all, much less between December 12th and December 19th. 	Moreover,
Plaintiff also has pending before the Court another complaint in which he appears to raise
many of the same claims that he raises in the above-captioned case, Atmore v. Mincey, Case
No. 5:26-cv-41-CAR-CHW (M.D. Ga. Jan. 29, 2026).
At the same time, however, at least some of Plaintiff’s claims could be barred by
the applicable statute of limitations if his Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. More
specifically, it appears Plaintiff may be attempting to raise claims concerning his treatment
at the Bibb County Law Enforcement Center between December of 2022 and the time he
was transferred to Central State Hospital. ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff contends that while he
was housed in the Bibb County LEC, he lost more than sixty pounds and was assaulted
several times, but officers did nothing to help him. 	Id. 	He also alleges a female deputy
threatened to shoot him with a taser if he did not let her take his vital signs, and he says
that jail officials “trick[ed him] to a suicide cell.” Id.
In an abundance of caution, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and will reopen
this case so that Plaintiff may raise his claims concerning his treatment at the Bibb County
LEC. 	Plaintiff is thus ORDERED to submit a recast complaint on the Court’s standard
form that is limited to those claims. 	The recast complaint must contain a caption that
clearly identifies, by name, each individual that Plaintiff has a claim against and wishes to
Case 5:25-cv-00519-CAR-ALS Document 9 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 6

4
include as a Defendant in the present lawsuit. 	Plaintiff is to name only the individuals
associated with the claim or related claims that he is pursuing in this action. Plaintiff must
provide enough facts to plausibly demonstrate that each defendant’s actions or omissions
resulted in the violation of his constitutional rights.
To that end, it is recommended that, when drafting his statement of claims on the
Court’s form, Plaintiff list numbered responses to the following questions (to the extent
possible) along with the name of each defendant:
(1) 	What did this defendant do (or not do) to violate your rights? In other words:
What was the extent of this defendant’s role in the unconstitutional conduct
other than being in a supervisory role? 	Was the defendant personally
involved in the constitutional violation? 	If not, did his actions otherwise
cause the unconstitutional action? How do you know?
(2) 	When and where did each action occur (to the extent memory allows)?
(3) 	How were you injured as a result of this defendant’s actions or decisions? If
you have been physically injured, explain the extent of your injuries and any
medical care requested or provided.
(4) 	How and when did this defendant learn of your injuries or otherwise become
aware of a substantial risk that you could suffer a serious injury?
(5) 	What did this defendant do (or not do) in response to this knowledge?
(6) 	What relief do you seek from this defendant?
Plaintiff should state his claims as simply as possible referring only to the relevant
allegations against the named defendants in this case; he need not attach supporting
documents to his recast complaint, use legal terminology, or cite any specific statute or
case law to state a claim, although the Court will presume that Plaintiff’s claims are brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless otherwise specified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. If, in his recast
Case 5:25-cv-00519-CAR-ALS Document 9 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 6

5
complaint, Plaintiff fails to link a named defendant to a claim, the claim will be dismissed.
Likewise, if Plaintiff makes no allegations in the body of his recast complaint against a
named defendant, that defendant will be dismissed.
Plaintiff is cautioned that he will not be permitted to join claims against multiple
defendants in one action unless Plaintiff can establish a logical relationship between the
claims in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is also cautioned
to fully and truthfully respond to each question presented on the standard form including
but not limited to those questions regarding previous federal lawsuits and whether he has
pursued grievances and exhausted his administrative remedies, or he risks dismissal of this
case. Plaintiff should also ensure that he signs his Complaint in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
The recast complaint will supersede (take the place of) the original Complaint
(ECF No. 1). Plaintiff may include additional pages with the Court’s standard form,
but the recast complaint must be no longer than ten (10) pages in its entirety. 	This
ten-page limit includes (and is not in addition to) the pages making up the Court’s standard
form. 	The Court will not consider any allegations in any other document, or any
allegations not contained within those ten pages, to determine whether Plaintiff has
stated an actionable claim. Accordingly, any fact Plaintiff deems necessary to his lawsuit
should be clearly stated in his recast complaint, even if Plaintiff has previously alleged it
in another filing. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of the § 1983 form marked
with the case number of the above-captioned action to the Plaintiff. 	Plaintiff shall have
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order to submit a recast complaint on this
Case 5:25-cv-00519-CAR-ALS Document 9 Filed 03/04/26 Page 5 of 6

6
form. 	Once Plaintiff has submitted his recast complaint, the Court will screen it to
determine whether any of Plaintiff’s claims should proceed for further factual development
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and/or § 1915(e). Plaintiff’s motion to conduct a jury trial
on February 4, 2026 (ECF No. 8) is therefore DENIED.
To reiterate, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED, and
Plaintiff shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order to file a recast
complaint on the Court’s standard form that raises only his claims concerning his treatment
at the Bibb County LEC. Plaintiff’s motion for a February 4, 2026 jury trial (ECF No. 8)
is DENIED. 	Plaintiff is reminded to notify the Court immediately and in writing of any
change in his mailing address. The failure to fully and timely comply with the Court’s
orders and instructions may result in the dismissal of this case. 	There shall be no
service of process until further order of the Court.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2026.
s/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:25-cv-00519-CAR-ALS Document 9 Filed 03/04/26 Page 6 of 6