LORUSSO
v.
WARDEN, NORTH FLORIDA EVALUATION AND TREATMENT CENTER

M.D. Fla. | 2025-09-26
No. 6:06-cv-1639
2025 FFL 25591 District Court, M.D. Florida (2025) Positive Treatment
Cited by 43 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

LoRusso, proceeding pro se, petitioned for reconsideration of a denial of appointed counsel and a case dismissal for failure to pay filing fees or request pauper status. The court denied the motion, holding that reconsideration is an extraordinary measure applied sparingly and that petitioner failed to present arguments warranting reconsideration.

Holding

The motion for reconsideration is denied. Petitioner failed to present arguments that satisfy the three grounds for reconsideration: an intervening change in controlling law, availability of new evidence, or need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.

Headnotes

[1] District courts have discretion to reconsider prior decisions.

[2] Grounds justifying reconsideration of an order include an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or m…

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Key Quotes

“Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary measure and should be applied sparingly.”

Establishes the high bar for seeking reconsideration of prior orders in this district.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner's motion for appointed counsel was denied on August 22, 2025. The case was subsequently dismissed on August 27, 2025, for failure to pay th…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Need To Correct Clear Error Or Manifest Injustice Availability Of New Evidence Intervening Change In Controlling Law Rule 60(B)

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Need To Correct Clear Error Or Manifest Injustice cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

This cause comes before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 8). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion will be denied.

By Order dated August 22, 2025, Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Doc. 4, was denied. (Doc. 5). Subsequently, by Order dated August 27, 2025, the case was dismissed due to Petitioner's failure to pay the filing fee or file a request to proceed as a pauper. (Doc. 6). Petitioner now seeks reconsideration of the denial of counsel due to his status of being held in a state mental health hospital. (Doc. 8).

District courts are afforded considerable discretion to reconsider prior decisions. See Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (discussing reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)). Courts in this District recognize "three grounds justifying reconsideration of an order: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” McGuire v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 497 F. Supp. 2d

1356, 1358 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (quotation omitted); Montgomery v. Fla. First Fin. Grp., Inc., No. 6:06-cv-1639-Orl-31KRS, 2007 WL 2096975, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2007). "Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary measure and should be applied sparingly." Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Servs., Inc., 89 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1320 (M.D. Fla. 2000). “[M]otions for reconsideration should not be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been previously made." Id. (quotation omitted). Stated differently, "[a] party who fails to present its strongest case in the first instance generally has no right to raise new theories or arguments in a motion for reconsideration.” McGuire, 497 F. Supp. 2d at 1358 (quotation omitted). To permit otherwise would "essentially afford[] a litigant two bites at the apple." Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc., 763 F. 2d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir. 1985) (quotation omitted).

In his motion, Petitioner notes that he was appointed counsel in a separate pending § 2254 case as why he should have had one appointed in this case. (Doc. 8). He further presents complaints about unrelated cases. Id. at 1–2. Petitioner has not raised any arguments warranting reconsideration of the order denying him counsel. This case was dismissed and is closed.

Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion (Doc. 8) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 26, 2025.

WILLIAM F. JUNG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Pro Se Party

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (32 total)

  • LoRusso v. Warden, N. Fla. Evaluation & Treatment Ctr. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …ire v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 497 F. Supp. 2d ---PAGE 2--- Case 5:25-cv-00455-WFJ-PRL Document 9 Filed 09/26/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID 45 1356, 1358 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (quotation omitted); Montgomery v. Fla. First Fin. Grp., Inc., No. 6:06-cv-1639-Orl-31KRS, 2007 WL 2096975, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2007). "Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary measure and should be applied sparingly." Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Servs., Inc., 89 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1320 (M.D. Fla. 2000). “[M]otions for reconsidera…
    1 / 2
  • Armstrong v. Flowers Hosp., 33 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 1994)
    …for favoritism.” Id. See also Barrash v. Bowen, 846 F. 2d 927 (4th Cir.1988) (employee who sought six month maternity leave not entitled to dictate managerial decisions affecting employment relationship); Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 693 (M.D.Fla.1994) (“To require an employer to make reasonable accommodations for a pregnant employee is to require the employer to relinquish virtually all control over employees once they do become pregnant.”); Elie v. K-Mart Corp., 64 Fair Empl.…
  • BTL Indus., Inc. v. Nextwellness USA LLC, 2018 WL 10669778 (M.D. Fla. 2024)
    …ed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2224 reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). Plaintiff argus that Defendant's Motion (Doc. 87) did not comply with Local Rule 3.01(g), mispresented communications between the two parties, did not provide good cause for the extension, and requested discovery that "could…

Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw