ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONJ

C. ASHLEY ROYAL, District Judge.

On October 10, 2013, Plaintiff Bryan Kawand Sims, a state prisoner currently confined at the Baldwin State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia, filed a pro se civil rights complaint in this Court seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff's current confinement arises out of a life sentence following a conviction for Armed Robbery and related crimes.2 According to the complaint, Plaintiff sought freedom to groom himself in accordance with Rastafarianism, Plaintiff's practiced religion.3

The procedural record of this Court shows that Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 19, 2013,4 which was granted in part and denied in part on June 4, 2014.5 Plaintiff was allowed by the Court to proceed with his claims against Defendant Owens, Oubre, and Price regarding Plaintiff's right to grow a goatee.6 Plaintiff's claim pertaining to the length of his dreadlocks was dismissed for all defendants.7

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgement for the remaining claims on November 11, 2014.8 Shortly after, the Supreme Court decided Holt v. Hobbs9, which potentially changed the posture of the case, so the Court ordered Defendants to supplement their motion accordingly.10 Defendants then filed a motion for extension of time putting the Court on notice that the Georgia Department of Corrections was adjusting relevant policies based on Holt. A hearing was held to determine what changes were being made and how those changes would affect plaintiff's claim.11

In light of those changes as well as the Holt decision, Defendants withdrew their motion for summary judgment.12 Defendants were given until September 1, 2015, to refile their motion for summary judgment—allowing time for the Georgia Department of Corrections to finalize and apply its new prisoner grooming policy.13 Due to delays in development and implementation of those policies, Defendants sought and were granted a ninety (90) day extension, making Defendants' motion for summary judgment due on November 30, 2015. Defendants have not filed their renewed motion for summary judgment as of the date of this Order; the action currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration filed on September 29, 2015. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the order dismissing his hair-length RLUIPA claim and Section 1983 claims.

Local Rule 7.614 cautions that "[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice."15 "Reconsideration is appropriate `only if the movant demonstrates (1) that there has been an intervening change in the law, (2) that new evidence has been discovered which was not previously available to the parties in the exercise of due diligence, or (3) that the court made a clear error of law.'"16 Importantly, "[a] motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue the issue the Court has once determined."17

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to reconsideration because there has been an intervening change in the law in light of the Holt decision. Plaintiff is correct that Holt may potentially constitute an intervening change in law, but is incorrect that he is entitled to reconsideration. Holt vacated opinions relied on by this Court in deciding Defendant's motion to dismiss. 18 Holt also determined that some of the analysis mentioned by this Court was a "strand of reasoning" "improperly imported ... from cases involving prisoners' first amendment rights02ba because RLUIPA "provided greater protection."19 However, these cases and that strand of reasoning were not relied on by this Court in deciding the claims for which Plaintiff seeks reconsideration.

Defendant's motion to dismiss did not argue that Plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case with regard to his hair-length claim. Instead, Defendant argued that the grooming policy specifically at issue in Plaintiff's complaint had already been found permissible by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.20 Post Holt, it remains clearly established law that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim regarding the length of his hair. Specifically, Harris v. Chapman,21 remains good law.22 "In Harris, the Eleventh circuit resolved a Rastafarian inmate's RFRA challenge to a Florida grooming policy nearly identical to the Grooming Policy at issue in this case."23

Thus, while Holt could potentially constitute an intervening change in the law with regard to RLUIPA grooming claims, those aspects of the law which were changed or clarified do not reach the reasons for which Plaintiff's hair-length claim was dismissed. Instead, Holt impacts Plaintiff's claim regarding his facial-hair, and this Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed with that claim.

Finally, it should be noted that Holt addressed the issue of how courts analyze the security risk posed by short facial hair, and this Court determined the following in its order on defendant's motion to dismiss:

Thus, this Court denied Plaintiff's dreadlocks hair-length claim and allowed Plaintiff's goatee facial-hair claim based on reasoning that is not in tension with Holt.

Since Plaintiff has failed to show a manifest error25 of law or fact and there was not an intervening change in law with respect to Plaintiff's hair-length claim, no grounds exist for reconsideration. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration on his RLUIPA hair-length claims [Doc. 44] is DENIED.

Plaintiff also argues that he is entitled to reconsideration for his dismissed Section 1983 claims. However, Plaintiff fails to show that reconsideration of the Court's order is appropriate on any of the three grounds listed above. There is nothing in Plaintiff's motion showing that the law has changed or that new evidence has been discovered. Moreover, the Court's order is not clearly erroneous or unjust. Thus, no grounds exist for reconsideration, and Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 44] is DENIED.

Further, Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's request for an extension of time [Doc. 45] is MOOT. Defendant's motion was previously granted.26 Insofar as Plaintiff is objecting to the order granting the motion, Plaintiff's objection is DENIED. Insofar as Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration27 is untimely, the Court construes the instant motion to include a motion for extension of time and GRANTS the motion for extension of time.

SO ORDERED.