WASHINGTON
v.
TRANSPORTATION AND SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

M.D. Fla. | 2025-01-03
No. 33
2025 FFL 120 District Court, M.D. Florida (2025) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 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.

Holding

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for miscellaneous relief, finding it procedurally deficient and substantively unsupported.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff filed a fifty-one-page motion seeking a writ of error, writ of mandamus, and enforcement of a discovery subpoena. The motion was unclear as …

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
Pro Se Litigant Obligations

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Se Litigant Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

MOTION: MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF (Doc. No. 33) FILED: December 9, 2024

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

By this untitled, fifty-one-page motion, it is not clear what relief Plaintiff seeks, with Plaintiff stating that he "submit[s] a writ of error and writ of mandamus to the ... Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for ruling dated November 25, 2024," and then goes on to “motion the Court to enforce a discovery subpoena pursuant to Rule 45." Doc. No. 33, at 1-2. The November 25, 2024 Order (Doc. No. 29) was not an appealable Order, so the Court construes the filing as a motion for reconsideration of the November 25, 2024 Order, and for issuance of subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Upon review, the motion (Doc. No. 33) will be denied.

First, the motion does not comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) because it exceeds the page limitation for a motion, without leave of Court. And although the motion lists several rules and statutes, Plaintiff does not explain how any of them authorize any requested relief. Doc. No. 33.

Second, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the November 25, 2024 Order, "[m]otions for reconsideration are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Stallworth v. Omninet Village, L.P., No. 6:16-cv-546-Orl-31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (citing Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006), aff'd, 215 F. App'x 879 (11th Cir. 2007))). Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 33) fails to satisfy any of these standards.

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff again motions the Court for issuance of subpoenas, as the Court previously advised Plaintiff, no Defendant has yet been served or appeared in this case, and as such no case management conference has yet occurred and discovery has not yet opened; therefore, any attempts to obtain discovery are premature. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).

For these reasons, the motion (Doc. No. 33) is DENIED. Plaintiff is advised that although he proceeds pro se in this case, pro se litigants are “subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Failures to comply with applicable Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in the imposition of sanctions.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 3, 2025.

Leslie Hoffman Price

LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • S. Coast K9 v. Heiser, 2024 WL 4275221 (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …ree different law firms all miss the same deadline, the Court finds it hard to agree that excusable neglect exists.³ Plaintiffs' silence on this point does not aide their cause. See also Stallworth v. Omninet Vill., L.P., No. 6:16-cv-546-Orl- 31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (finding that a party's failure to timely serve discovery or respond to a motion to compel “due to alleged calendar errors or mistakes does not amount to the type of manifest injustice that compels extraordinary reli…
  • Washington v. Transp. & Sec. Admin. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …reconsideration are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” *Stallworth v. Omninet Village, L.P.*, No. 6:16-cv-546-Orl-31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (citing *Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins. Co.*, 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006), *aff'd*, 215 F. App'x 879 (11th Cir. 2007))). Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 33) fails to satisfy any of these s…
  • Orlando Health, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …ndaring error - when HKS is fully aware of the deadlines set forth in the Standing Order on Discovery Motions as demonstrated by the prior motions practice in this case-is unavailing. See Stallworth v. Omninet Vill., L.P., No. 6:16-cv-546-Orl-31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, -2- ---PAGE 3--- Case 6:24-cv-00693-JA-LHP Document 84 Filed 02/04/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID 2457 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (finding that a party's failure to timely serve discovery or respond to a motion to compel "due to alleged calendar err…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw