United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
G. BYRON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause comes before the Court on pro se
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 15) of the
Court's June 13, 2019, Order.
3, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Complaint and filed a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2). On
May 10, 2019, the Magistrate issued a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 6 (the
“R&R”)) recommending that
the motion be denied, and the case be dismissed with leave to
file an amended complaint. (Id.). On May 22, 2019,
the Court adopted the R&R, dismissed the Complaint, and
gave Plaintiff until June 12, 2019 to amend. (Doc. 7).
Plaintiff was advised that failure to file an amended
complaint by June 12, 2019, would result in dismissal of this
case without further notice. (Id.).
28, 2019, the Court issued an Order Directing Compliance with
the Related Case Order and Notice and the Interested Persons
Order issued on May 8, 2019. (Docs. 3, 4, 9). The Court
advised that Plaintiff had fourteen days from the date of the
Order in which to file both orders. (Doc. 9). On May 28,
2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to
respond to the R&R and the Court's Order Directing
Compliance with the Related Case Order and Notice and
Interested Persons Order. (Doc. 10). On May 29, 2019, that
motion was denied because the time to object to the R&R
had passed and Plaintiff already received an additional
fourteen days to comply with the Court's orders. (Doc.
13, 2019, this case was dismissed without prejudice and the
Clerk was directed to close the file. (Doc. 14). On June 28,
2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that
order (the “Motion”), explaining
that he had mailed an amended complaint on June 12, 2019, and
relied on the “mailbox” rule for timely filing.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) establishes three grounds for a
successful motion for reconsideration: “(1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability
of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or
manifest injustice.” Moton v. Cowart, No.
8:06-cv-2163-T-30EAJ, 2007 WL 1876036, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb.
20, 2007) (citations omitted). Reconsideration of a previous
order is an extraordinary remedy, one that is reserved for
those instances where the facts or law are so strongly
convincing as to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision. Ludwig v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No.
03-cv-2378-T-17-MAP, 2005 WL 1053691, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar.
30, 2005) (citation omitted). “A motion for
reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply
reargue-or argue for the first time-an issue the Court has
once determined.” Perry Health Mgmt. Assocs.
Inc., No. 2:13-CV-36-FTM-29D NF, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
156903, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2014). Instead, the motion
“must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing
nature to demonstrate to the court the reason to reverse its
prior decision.” Id.
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides: “On motion and
just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a[n] order . . . for the following
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies
relief.” Such motions shall be made “within a
reasonable time, ” and under Rule 60(b)(1), motions
must be made no more than a year after the entry of the
judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). “A significantly
higher standard is generally used to decide whether a movant
is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b).” Kornacki
v. S. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., No.
3:14-cv-784-J-34MCR, 2015 WL 7756137, at *1 n.1 (M.D. Fla.
Dec. 1, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th
asks this Court to reconsider its dismissal without prejudice
based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with this
Court's orders. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff claims he filed an
amended complaint on or before June 12, 2019, by mailing it
from the federal institution where he is incarcerated.
(Id.). Plaintiff has not attached a copy of the
amended complaint, nor offered any proof that the amended
complaint was mailed before the deadline. (Id.).
Plaintiff also offers no explanation for his failure to
comply with the Court's Order regarding the related case
order and notice and the interested persons order.
(Id.). Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden to
demonstrate that the dismissal without prejudic e should be
it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. 15) is