WILLIAMS
v.
WILLIAMS
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.
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied because he failed to comply with court orders and procedural rules.
The plaintiff's case was dismissed due to his failure to comply with the court's order to use an approved complaint form and to pay the filing fee or …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the Court upon Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 8) which seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order (Doc. 5) dismissing his case. The case was dismissed due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's order. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.
District courts are afforded considerable discretion to reconsider prior decisions. See Harper v. Lawrence Cnty., 592 F. 3d 1227, 1231–32 (11th Cir. 2010) (discussing reconsideration of interlocutory orders); Lamar Advert. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 488–89, 492 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (discussing reconsideration generally and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)); 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).
The Court's Standing Order (Doc. 2) advised Plaintiff of some, but not all, of the procedural rules with which he must comply. The Standing Order notes that Plaintiff's failure to use the Court's approved complaint form can result in the dismissal of the action. Id. at 2. By Order dated February 25, 2025, Plaintiff was again advised of the Court's requirement to use the Court's approved form, was sent a blank complaint form, and was directed to file the amended complaint on or before March 11, 2025. (Doc. 4). A review of the docket reflects that a blank complaint form was sent with the February 25, 2025 Order. Plaintiff failed to comply, and the case was dismissed. (Doc. 5). Now, Plaintiff claims he never received the blank form. (Doc. 8).
The Standing Order further required Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days of the filing of the case. (Doc. 2 at 2). Plaintiff has failed to comply with that directive.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 8) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on April 11, 2025.
Wel
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Pro Se Party
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Williams v. Williams (M.D. Fla. 2025)…courts are afforded considerable discretion to reconsider prior decisions. See Harper v. Lawrence Cnty., 592 F.3d 1227, 1231–32 (11th Cir. 2010) (discussing reconsideration of interlocutory orders); Lamar Advert. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 488–89, 492 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (discussing reconsideration generally and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)); 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…1 / 2
-
Walters v. State of Ariz., 2008 WL 4459085 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…t has interpreted those parameters to include "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice." Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999). For example, reconsideration may be appropriate where “the Court has patently misunderstood a party.” O'Neill v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469, 483 (S.D. Fla. 2006). The purpose of Rule 59 is not to ask the Court to…
-
Adams v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Putnam County), 2016 WL 6037535 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…has interpreted those parameters to include "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Lamar Advert. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, Fla., 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999). The purpose of Rule 59 is not to ask the Court to reexamine an unfavorable ruling absent a manifest error of law or fact. Jacobs v. Tempur- Pedic Int'l., Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010). As a result, Rule 59(e) cann…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237 (11th Cir. 1985)
- McGuire v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 2007 WL 2079961 (M.D. Fla. 2007)
- Harper v. Lawrence Cnty., 592 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2010)
- Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Servs., Inc., 89 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2000)
- LoRusso v. Warden, N. Fla. Evaluation & Treatment Ctr. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
- Williams v. Williams (M.D. Fla. 2025)