United States District Court, S.D. Florida
Eliezer Taveras, pro se
ORDER ON AMENDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff's
Amended Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 
(“Motion”), of the Court's Order, ECF No.
 (“Order”). In that Order, the Court denied
Plaintiff's request to be permitted to electronically
file documents via CM/ECF. Defendant filed a response, ECF
No.  (“Response”). The Court has carefully
considered the Motion, the Response, the record in this case
and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For
the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.
case was previously assigned to the Honorable Cecilia
Altonaga. Judge Altonaga issued an order denying
Plaintiff's first request for electronic filing
privileges, ECF No.  (“First Motion”), on
August 28, 2019. See ECF No. . Subsequently,
upon motion by the Plaintiff, Judge Altonaga recused from the
case, and this matter was reassigned to the undersigned on
September 5, 2019. See ECF No. . Plaintiff now
requests that this Court reconsider Judge Altonaga's
Order and allow him to electronically file documents.
Motion, as in the First Motion, Plaintiff argues that his
inability to file electronically, and the fact that he is
located in Spain, imposes significant costs upon him and
causes delays in the progression of this case. While that may
be true, Plaintiff's Motion fails to comply with the
Local Rules and is otherwise improper.
under the Local Rules,
Whenever any motion or application has been made to any Judge
. . . and has been refused in whole or in part, or has been
granted conditionally, and a subsequent motion or application
is made to a different District Judge . . . for the same
relief in whole or in part, upon the same or any alleged
different state of facts, it shall be the continuing duty of
each party and attorney seeking such relief to present to the
District Judge . . . to whom the subsequent application is
made an affidavit setting forth the material facts and
circumstances surrounding each prior application, including:
(1) when and to what District Judge . . . the application was
made; (2) what ruling was made thereon; and (3) what new or
different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which
did not exist, or were not shown, upon the prior application.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(e). In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks
identical relief based upon the same facts and circumstances
set forth in the First Motion, which Judge Altonaga denied.
As such, Plaintiff is required to provide an affidavit
according to Local Rule 7.1(e), which he did not do.
as Plaintiff is already aware, a motion for reconsideration
requests that the Court grant “an extraordinary remedy
to be employed sparingly.” Burger King Corp. v.
Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F.Supp.2d 1366, 1370 (S.D.
Fla. 2002). A court may grant reconsideration when there is
(1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the
availability of new evidence, or (3) the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Hood v.
Perdue, 300 F. App'x. 699, 700 (11th Cir. 2008).
Thus, a motion to reconsider is “appropriate where, for
example, the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has
made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to
the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of
reasoning but of apprehension.” Kapila v. Grant
Thornton, LLP, No. 14-61194-CIV, 2017 WL 3638199, at *1
(S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2017) (quoting Z.K. Marine Inc. v.
M/V Archigetis, 808 F.Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992)
(internal quotation marks omitted). However, a motion for
reconsideration “is not an opportunity for the moving
party . . . to instruct the court on how the court
‘could have done it better' the first time.”
Hood, 300 Fed.Appx. at 700 (citation omitted). While
Plaintiff contends that reconsideration is proper in this
instance to prevent manifest injustice, the instant Motion
constitutes the second time Plaintiff has requested that the
Court reconsider orders entered by Judge Altonaga based only
upon his disagreement with her rulings. See ECF Nos.
, . However, as the Court has already noted,
see ECF No. , disagreement with previous rulings
is not a proper basis for reconsideration. As such, Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration of Judge
Altonaga's Order would be proper.
Plaintiffs Motion, ECF No. , is