United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff David Hastings' Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 41). By way of an Order (Doc. 39), the
Court granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 36;
37) and dismissed Hastings' Third Amended Complaint (Doc.
28). Now, Hastings moves for reconsideration of that Order,
stating that he never received Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss. (Doc. 41).
motion for reconsideration must demonstrate why the court
should reconsider its past decision and set forth facts or
law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to
reverse its prior decision.” Fla. Coll. of
Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds
Inc., 12 F.Supp.2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “Further, in the
interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial
resources, reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be
employed sparingly.” Stalley v. ADS All. Data Sys.,
Inc., 296 F.R.D. 670, 687 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). There are three
grounds for reconsideration of a prior order under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e): “(1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest
injustice.” Church of Our Savior v. City of
Jacksonville Beach, 108 F.Supp.3d 1259, 1265 (M.D. Fla.
2015) (citation omitted).
Motion is based solely on the ground that he did not receive
copies of the Motions to Dismiss. His address has not
changed. (Doc. 41 at 2). There is no indication he failed to
receive any other documents. And the Motions to Dismiss each
contained certificates of service, certifying that Defendants
mailed copies to Hastings. (Docs. 36 at 6; 37 at 7).
Moreover, the Court did not dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint due to Hastings' failure to respond. Instead,
the Order considered the merits and followed well-established
law that Hastings cannot state a claim until he obtains
postconviction relief. (Doc. 39 at 2-5). For that reason, the
Court is skeptical any basis exists to reconsider its Order,
despite any potential service issues. At least one other
court rejected a pro se plaintiff's reconsideration
motion under similar circumstances. Echeverry v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 16-cv-61635-GAYLES, 2017 WL
880424, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2017).
abundance of caution, however, the Court will allow Hastings
to supplement his Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 41) to
explain how he stated a claim and why the Court should
reconsider its Order (Doc. 39).
it is now
Plaintiff must SUPPLEMENT his Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 41), explaining how he stated a claim
and why the Court should reconsider its Order (Doc. 39).
The failure to file this supplement will result in
denial of the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 41)
without further notice.
a. Plaintiffs supplement must be filed on or before
November 1, 2019.
b. Defendants may respond on or before November 8,
Court RESERVES RULING on the Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 41).
Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this
Order-along with copies of the Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 36;