MILLER v. FLOURNOY et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
NANCY B. MILLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHATTAHOOCHEE CIRCUIT PUBLIC
DEFENDER’S OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
CASE NO. 4:25-cv-96 (CDL)
O R D E R
Plaintiff’s 	motion 	for 	reconsideration 	of 	the 	scheduling
order (ECF No. 23) entered in this case is denied. 	Plaintiff has
failed 	to 	show 	excusable 	neglect 	for 	her 	complete 	disregard 	of
this 	Court’s 	previously 	entered 	Rules 	16/26 	Order 	(ECF 	Nos. 	5 	&
18), 	which 	required 	her 	to 	consult 	with 	Defendant’s 	attorney 	and
provide 	the 	Court 	with 	a 	jointly 	proposed 	scheduling 	order.
Furthermore, 	based 	on 	her 	lack 	of 	excusable 	neglect 	and 	her
consistent 	failure 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	Court’s 	rules, 	the 	Court
does 	not 	find 	that 	good 	cause 	exists 	to 	grant 	her 	motion 	for
reconsideration.
Plaintiff, who is an attorney, also listed herself as counsel
of record for herself on her complaint, along with her co-counsel,
Mr. Shelnutt. 	Thus, this case is being prosecuted by two members
of the Georgia Bar. 	Yet, they both seem to be too busy to follow
Case 4:25-cv-00096-CDL Document 24 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 4

2
the Court’s rules and participate in the litigation of this case.
Their lack of attention to the Court’s rules began at the inception
of 	the 	case 	when 	they 	received 	a 	notice 	of 	deficiency 	regarding
the filing of the complaint. 	Notice of Deficiency (Mar. 19, 2025).
That 	deficiency 	was 	corrected 	with 	no 	adverse 	consequences 	to
Plaintiff. 	Then 	Plaintiff 	failed 	to 	file 	any 	response 	to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 	Instead of dismissing the complaint
for failure to prosecute, the Court took it upon itself to inform
Plaintiff 	of 	her 	failure 	to 	respond 	and 	provided 	her 	with 	an
extension to respond. 	Text Order (May 14, 2025), ECF No. 6. 	Then
in her tardy response, she attempted to file an amended complaint,
without leave of court, and embedded it within her response to the
motion to dismiss. 	This failure to follow the Court’s rules would
have 	been 	noticed 	by 	a 	first-year 	law 	student. 	The 	Court 	again
allowed 	her 	to 	correct 	this 	mistake 	and 	file 	the 	appropriate
amended 	complaint, 	again 	without 	any 	adverse 	consequences. 	Text
Order (June 3, 2025), ECF No. 10. 	Her amended complaint was sloppy
and bordered on being a shotgun pleading. 	Miller v. Ga. Pub. Def.
Standards 	Council, 	No. 	4:25-CV-96 	(CDL), 	2025 	WL 	2844771, 	at 	*1
n.2 	(M.D. 	Ga. 	Oct. 	7, 	2025) 	(observing 	that 	Miller’s 	complaint
“does 	not 	assign 	particular 	facts 	to 	particular 	claims” 	and 	mis-
cites 	the 	relevant 	legal 	authority). 	Nevertheless, 	the 	Court
considered 	it, 	having 	to 	search 	for 	her 	claims, 	and 	ultimately
Case 4:25-cv-00096-CDL Document 24 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 4

3
allowed 	certain 	claims 	to 	survive. 	Id. 	at 	*1. 	Once 	again, 	her
failure to follow the rules was excused.
Finally, after denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part,
the 	Court 	ordered 	the 	parties 	to 	confer 	in 	an 	attempt 	to 	provide
the 	Court 	with 	a 	jointly 	proposed 	scheduling 	order. 	Id. 	at 	*6.
Yet again Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order. 	She
did 	not 	confer 	in 	any 	meaningful 	way, 	and 	the 	Court 	ordered
Defendant’s 	counsel 	to 	simply 	submit 	the 	scheduling 	order 	even
though it may not include Plaintiff’s input. 	Counsel for Defendant
did 	so, 	and 	the 	Court 	entered 	the 	scheduling 	order. 	Scheduling
and Discovery Order, ECF No. 20. 	This time Plaintiff’s failure to
follow 	the 	Court’s 	rules 	had 	adverse 	consequences. 	The 	Court
decided 	that 	she 	would 	not 	be 	able 	to 	take 	any 	depositions 	since
she did not bother to even consult with opposing counsel as to the
discovery 	she 	wished 	to 	undertake. 	Id. 	at 	1-2. 	The 	Court 	finds
that she waived any such right by her failure to follow the Court’s
order to confer with opposing counsel to prepare a jointly proposed
scheduling order.
Given 	Plaintiff’s 	consistent 	failure 	to 	follow 	the 	Court’s
rules, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	mercy 	is 	not 	warranted 	under 	the
circumstances. 	In fact, the Court’s previous acts of mercy appear
to have sent the message to Plaintiff’s counsel that the rules do
not apply to them. 	Hopefully, after today’s order, they will get
a different message. 	The motion for reconsideration is denied.
Case 4:25-cv-00096-CDL Document 24 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of November, 2025.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 4:25-cv-00096-CDL Document 24 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 4