United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
SHERIPOLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jamaal Ali
Bilal's Motion for Relief of this Court's Order dated
March 13, 2018, Relief from Judgment, or in the Alternative
to Vacate the Order and Return the Case to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Doc.
116) filed on March 22, 2018. The Court will construe
the Motion as a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's
Order (Doc. 115) filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
60, Fed. R. Civ. P., defines the circumstances under which a
party may obtain relief from a final judgment or an order.
"It should be construed in order to do substantial
justice, but this does not mean that final judgments should
be lightly reopened." Griffin v. Swim-Tech
Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984) (citations
omitted) (stating "[t]he desirability for order and
predictability in the judicial process speaks for caution in
the reopening of judgments."). For example, Rule 60(b)
permits courts to reopen judgments or change orders for
reasons of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect. “Motions under this rule are directed to the
sound discretion of the district court.” Id.
Because Plaintiff's motion alleges none of the first five
categories for relief in Rule 60(b), the Court construes it
as a motion brought under Rule 60(b)(6). Often referred to as
the catch-all ground, Rule 60(b)(6) provides an avenue for
relief for "any other reason justifying relief." In
seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6), Plaintiff has the burden
of showing that absent relief from the judgment, an
"extreme" and "unexpected" hardship will
result. Id. (citing United States v. Swift &
Co., 286 U.S. 106, 119 (1932)).
March 13, 2018, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for
Clarification. (Doc. 115). In his Motion for Clarification
(Doc. 110, 111), Plaintiff moved the Court to make the
Defendants pay for his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit because
they removed his case from state court to federal court.
Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider its ruling
arguing that the Southern District Court lacked jurisdiction
to dismiss (transfer) his case to this Court, and this court
should transfer the case back to the Southern District.
argues that the Southern District of Florida did not have
jurisdiction to transfer his case because the U.S.
Marshal's Service did not serve all of the Defendants
prior to United States Magistrate Judge's dismissal of
his case. Plaintiff argues from Williams v. King,
875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), which held that a magistrate
judge in California did not have jurisdiction to dismiss a
case where the plaintiff signed a consent to trial by
magistrate judge form, but not all of the defendants
consented, because they were not yet served.
reliance on King is misplaced. Here - unlike
King - the magistrate judge did not dismiss
Plaintiff's case, but instead issued a Report and
Recommendation to the District Court recommending that the
case be transferred to the Middle District of Florida. The
District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation because
all of the action in this case occurred at the Florida Civil
Commitment Center (FCCC) which is located in the Middle
District of Florida. Nalls v. Coleman Low Federal
Inst., 440 F.Appx. 704, 706 (11th Cir. 2011) (A district
court may sua sponte transfer a civil action to any
other district where it might have been brought if doing so
will be convenient for the parties and witnesses and serve
the interest of justice). Since the action and the parties
are located in the Middle District of Florida, the case was
properly transferred to this Court. Therefore, there is no
good cause to send the case back to the Southern District of
Court dismissed Plaintiff's case because he failed to
prosecute the action. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
dismissed Plaintiff's appeal for the same reason.
Plaintiff fails to cite to any case law or new facts in this
case that would cause this Court to reconsider and change any
of its rulings. Thus, the Motion is due to be denied.
Plaintiff is also cautioned that as this case is closed and
his appeal has been dismissed, any future filings in this
case will be stricken without further notice.
it is now
Jamaal Ali Bilal's Motion for Relief of this Court's
Order dated March 13, 2018, or in the Alternative to Vacate
the Order and Return the Case to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Doc.
116) is DENIED.
 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF
may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience.
Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are
subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other
websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any ...