United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Petitioner Errol John Mumby's
(“Mumby”) Motion to Alter or Amend Pursuant
and filed on October 30, 2019. (Doc. 35). The Respondents
have not filed a response, and the time to do so has expired.
For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
26, 2009, Mumby was charged with carjacking under Fla. Stat.
§ 812.133 and kidnapping under Fla. Stat. § 787.01.
(Ex. A1). In October 2010, a jury convicted him of carjacking
and the lesser-included offense of false imprisonment on the
kidnapping charge. (Ex. A5). Petitioner was sentenced to
twenty years imprisonment. (Ex. A9). After he exhausted his
state court remedies, Mumby filed a habeas petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). On September 27, 2019, the
Court denied his petition on the merits, finding Mumby
received effective assistance of counsel. (Doc. 32). Now,
Mumby moves for reconsideration of this Court's September
27, 2019 Opinion and Order under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
(Doc. 35). For the reasons below, the Court denies
motion for reconsideration may be brought under either Rule
59(e) or Rule 60(b). Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122
F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997). In either situation, relief
granted under these rules is within the sound discretion of
the judge. See Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers
Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993).
In exercising its discretion, the court balances two
competing interests: the need for finality and the need to
render just rulings based on all the facts. The former
typically prevails, as reconsideration of an order is an
extraordinary remedy used sparingly. See Am. Ass'n of
People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F.Supp.2d 1337,
1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003); Lamar Adver. of Mobile, Inc. v.
City of Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999).
“A motion for reconsideration must demonstrate why the
court should reconsider its prior 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)
Rule 59(e), courts have recognized three grounds justifying
reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need
to correct a clear error or manifest injustice. See
McCreary v. Brevard Cnty, Fla., No. 6:09-cv-1394, 2010
WL 2836709, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2010). “A motion
to reconsider is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments the
[c]ourt has already rejected or for attempting to refute the
basis for the [c]ourt's earlier decision.”
Parker v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 874
F.Supp.2d 1353, 1359 (M.D. Fla. 2012); see also Michael
Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763
(11th Cir. 2005). “A motion to reconsider should raise
new issues, not merely redress issues previously
litigated.” PaineWebber Income Props.
Three Ltd. P'ship v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F.Supp.
1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995); see also Ludwig v. Liberty
Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 8:03-cv-2378, 2005 WL 1053691,
at *11 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2005) (stating “a motion for
reconsideration is not the proper forum for [a] party to vent
dissatisfaction with the Court's reasoning”).
Rule 60(b), the court may relieve a party from a final
judgment or order for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously
called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
argues this Court erred in denying Grounds One, Three, and
Five of his habeas petition and, therefore, reconsideration
is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Doc. 35). The Court
preliminary matter, insofar as the motion is brought under
Rule 59(e), such motion is untimely. Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(b), “[a] motion for new trial must
be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.” A district court “must not extend the
time” to file a Rule 59(b) motion. Fed.R.Civ.P.
6(b)(2). The Eleventh Circuit has “stressed repeatedly
the jurisdictional, non-discretionary character of the Rule
6(b) admonition regarding the filing deadlines for such
post-trial motions.” Pinion v. Dow Chem.,
U.S.A., 928 F.2d 1522, 1526 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations
omitted). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(b), Mumby's deadline to
file a Rule 59(e) motion was October 25, 2019-that is,
twenty-eight days after the entry of the judgment. Because
[t]he prisoner mailbox rule applies to Rule 59(e) motions,
” the Court looks at the date Mumby signed, executed,
and delivered his motion to prison authorities for mailing.
Brown v. Taylor, 829 F.3d 365, 369 (5th Cir. 2016)
(citation omitted); see also Adams v. United States,
173 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 1999). The date stamp on the
motion shows Mumby provided his document to the prison
authorities for mailing two days late on October 27, 2019.
(Doc. 35 at 1, 9). Thus, his 59(e) motion is time-barred.
looking at Mumby's motion substantively, the Court finds
Petitioner has not demonstrated any basis for reconsideration
under Rule 59(e) or 60(b). He has shown neither any
intervening change in controlling law or new evidence that
has become available. He similarly fails to show how
reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. Instead, Mumby uses this motion
to re-litigate the issues the Court already considered and
rejected. What is more, a review of the applicable law shows
the Court has not committed any mistake in interpreting the
law or the facts. At its core, Mumby's motion asks this