ALOBA

v.

WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN 1

This cause comes before the Court on Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration." (Doc. 7).

Background

In January 2024, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). His petition asserted that he was being detained under a fictitious identity and claimed that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") was improperly calculating his sentence. (Doc. 1 at 6–8). Specifically, he contended that the BOP incorrectly calculated his credit for time served in jail, is denying him release to a halfway house and improperly denied him good conduct time. Id.

On January 19, 2024, Petitioner was directed to file a completed Application to Proceed in forma pauperis, Prisoner Consent form, and Financial Certificate within 30 days if he wished to proceed as a pauper. (Doc. 4). Petitioner failed to comply, and the case was dismissed on March 1, 2024. (Doc. 5).

Analysis

Petitioner does not cite a rule of procedure that permits the relief he seeks in his motion. See Doc. 7 at 1. However, the Eleventh Circuit has recognized that, after entry of final judgment, a party seeking reconsideration of an order proceeds under "either Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment or order)." See Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F. 2d 800, 806 n.5 (11th Cir. 1993). A motion to alter or amend a judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e), must be filed within twenty-eight days of entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because Petitioner filed his motion beyond the twenty-eight day window, the Court will construe his motion as one seeking relief under Rule 60(b). See Succullo v. United States, No. 8:16-CV-410-T-36TBM, 2017 WL 6383984, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2017) (explaining that motions for reconsideration filed within twentyeight days of a court's judgment fall under Rule 59(e), while those filed after the twentyeight-day period fall under Rule 60(b)); see also Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F. 3d 43, 46 (11th Cir.1997) (“A post-judgment motion may be treated as made pursuant to either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60—regardless of how the motion is styled by the movantdepending on the type of relief sought."); Mahone v. Ray, 326 F. 3d 1176, 1178, n.1 (11th Cir. 2003).

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).

In his motion, Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing and to conduct discovery to challenge to validity of his conviction. (Doc. 7 at 1–2). Petitioner has not raised any arguments warranting reconsideration or amendment of the judgment dismissing his petition.

Conclusion

Petitioner's Motion (Doc. 7) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 22,2024.

WILLIAM F. JUNG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Pro Se Party