United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ELIEZER TAVERAS, PRO SE
ORDER ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO ALTER OR AMEND THE
BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff's
Motion to Set Aside Order Granting Motion to Dismiss or in
the Alternative to Alter or Amend the Order, ECF No. 
(“Motion”). The Court has carefully considered
the Motion, the record in this case and the applicable law,
and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow,
the Motion is denied.
Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court set aside its order
dismissing this case, ECF No.  (“Order”). In
pertinent part, Plaintiff argues that he has discovered new
evidence to support his claims and that relief from the Order
is justified under Rules 59(e), 60(b)(1) and (b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 59(e) does not set forth any specific criteria, the
courts have delineated three major grounds justifying
reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need
to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”
Williams v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int'l,
N.V., 320 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1357-58 (S.D. Fla. 2004)
(citing Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A.,
153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994)); see Burger King
Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F.Supp.2d 1366,
1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002). 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 party may not use a motion for reconsideration to
“relitigate old matters, raise argument or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc.,
555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Michael
Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d
757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)). “This prohibition includes
new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not
pressed.'” Id. (quoting Stone v.
Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998) (per
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). 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 v. Perdue, 300 Fed.Appx. 699, 700 (11th Cir.
2008) (citation omitted).
review, relief under Rule 59(e) is not warranted because
Plaintiff's Motion amounts to no more than disagreement
with the Court's reasoning and ultimate conclusions.
See Z.K. Marine Inc, 808 F.Supp. at 1563 (“It
is an improper use of the motion to reconsider to ask the
Court to rethink what the Court already though
through-rightly or wrongly.”) (citation and alterations
omitted); see also See Roggio v. United States, 2013
WL 11320226, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013) (“[W]hen
there is mere disagreement with a prior order,
reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources and
should not be granted.”) (internal citation and
to Rule 60, the Court may grant relief from a judgment or
order based upon “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; . . . or any other reason that justifies
relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6).
“By its very nature, the rule seeks to strike a
delicate balance between two countervailing impulses: the
desire to preserve the finality of judgments and the
‘incessant command of the court's conscience that
justice be done in light of all the facts.'”
Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 401
(5th Cir.1981) (quoting Bankers Mortg. Co. v. United
States, 423 F.2d 73, 77 (5th Cir.1970)). “Rule
60(b)(6) motions must demonstrate that the circumstances are
sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief.”
Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 741
F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). “It is well established, . . . that
relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is an extraordinary remedy which
may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances.” Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp.,
722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984) (internal citation and
quotations omitted); see also Frederick v. Kirby
Tankships, Inc., 205 F.3d 1277, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000)
(“Federal courts grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6) only
for extraordinary circumstances.”). In any event,
whether to grant relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) is ultimately
a matter of discretion. Aldana, 741 F.3d at 1355
(citing Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th
Cir. 2006) (internal citation and quotations omitted)).
relief is also not warranted under Rule 60(b). Although
Plaintiff contends that the Court made an error in the
application of law, his contention stems from his
disagreement with the Court's Order, which the Court has
already determined is not a proper basis for reconsideration.
Moreover, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate the exceptional
circumstances required to justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
Plaintiff s Motion, ECF No. , is
DENIED. This case shall remain closed.
 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,
Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981), the Eleventh
Circuit adopted as binding precedent former Fifth Circuit
decisions handed ...