FONTAU
v.
WARDEN, COLEMAN FEDERAL PRISON CAMP
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 to reconsider the dismissal was denied because it lacked merit and failed to demonstrate manifest errors of law or fact.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action. After the defendant moved to dismiss, the plaintiff requested and was granted an extension …
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 Manifest Error Of Law Or Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff requested more time to respond to Defendant’s motion (Doc. 9), which the Court granted, giving Plaintiff until February 7, 2022, to respond (Doc. 10). When Plaintiff did not respond, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. See Order (Doc. 11). Again, Plaintiff did
not respond. The Court’s docket reflects the Clerk mailed Plaintiff both Orders (Docs. 10, 11) and neither was returned to the Court as undeliverable. Thus, on March 28, 2022, the Court found dismissal was warranted. See Order (Doc. 12).
Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider and vacate its Order dismissing this case (Doc. 14; Pl. Mot.). Plaintiff contends the Court’s Order was “baseless” because she was unaware the Court had ruled on her motion for more time to respond to the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.
Pl. Mot. ¶¶ 3, 6.3 Plaintiff’s motion is due to be denied. First, the motion includes no memorandum of law, contrary to the Court’s Local Rules and Standing Order. See M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(a); Order (Doc. 3). Regardless, Plaintiff’s request is
v. Head, 206 F. 3d 1106, 1137 (11th Cir. 2000). However, a party seeking relief under Rule 59(e) must show “manifest errors of law or fact” or newly discovered evidence. Arthur v. King, 500 F. 3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing In re Kellogg, 197 F. 3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999)).
Plaintiff does not show manifest errors of law or fact or point to newly discovered evidence that warrants altering or amending the judgment. The Court’s docket reflects the Clerk sent Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s Order granting her more time to respond to Defendant’s motion (Doc. 10) on January
7, 2022, and that Order was not returned to the Court as undeliverable. Neither was the Court’s Order to Show Cause returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff offers no evidence showing the contrary. Her self-serving contention that she did not receive the Court’s Order is insufficient.
If Plaintiff wants to pursue any cognizable or viable claims against Defendant, she may initiate a new action by filing a new civil rights complaint and paying the filing fee. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 14) is DENIED.
2. The Clerk shall update the spelling of Plaintiff's last name to “Fontao.” DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 18th day of May 2022.
J) ‘ / = fo Aagee | a OAL.
BRIAN. DAVIS
United States District Judge Jax-6 C: Juana Miriam Fontao Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971)
- Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007)
- Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106 (11th Cir. 2000)
- In re Kellogg v. Palmer K. Schreiber, 197 F.3d 1116 (11th Cir. 1999)