Joyner v. Alston & Bird LLP

Background

Dawn M. Joyner, who was representing herself, filed a second motion seeking clarification of the court’s March 29, 2022 order. The motion also presented additional arguments opposing the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. Joyner argued that the earlier order used complex and unclear language, that the motion to dismiss was procedurally improper, and that the delay in issuing a report and recommendation had caused harm and prejudice.

Court’s explanation

The court reaffirmed that Joyner could renew her request for judicial notice later if she had facts that qualified for judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b). The court also explained that, when deciding a motion to dismiss, it generally may not consider documents that were not attached to the complaint, incorporated into it by reference, or integral to it.

The court rejected Joyner’s arguments concerning delay, prejudice, and bias. It stated that the court had been attentive to her filings and that the motion to dismiss had been taken under advisement.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part Joyner’s second motion for clarification. It granted the motion to the extent it provided further explanation of the March 29 order. It denied the request to deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss because that motion would instead be addressed in a report and recommendation based on the parties’ earlier submissions. The clerk was directed to close the docket entry for the second motion for clarification. The order was issued by Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge.