RAGHUBIR

v.

WARDEN, TAYLOR CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

M.D. Fla. | 2020-05-08

District Court, M.D. Florida (2020)

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 held that the petitioner's motions to vacate and for rehearing en banc were unintelligible and lacked procedural basis, and therefore denied them.

Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner filed a third motion to vacate and a petition for rehearing en banc. The court found both filings to be largely unintelligible and without …

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

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Petition For Rehearing En Banc Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 60 Motion For Reconsideration Motion To Vacate

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Rehearing En Banc cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

This cause is before the Court on Petitioner’s “Motion to Vacate Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60” (Doc. 18) and “Petition for Rehearing En Banc” (Doc. 19).1 This is Petitioner’s third Motion to Vacate, which the Court again construes as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60, Fed. R. Civ. P. Upon review, the allegations in the motion are as unintelligible as in the first two motions. The third Motion to Vacate will, accordingly, be denied. As this is the third motion for reconsideration that the Court has considered and denied, Petitioner is warned that further motions filed pursuant to Rule 60, Fed. R. Civ. P., will be stricken. Moreover, the Petition for Rehearing En Banc

(Doc. 19) is largely undecipherable, and there is no procedural basis for a rehearing en banc by a United States District Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60 (Doc. 18) and Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Doc. 19) are

DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on 8 , 202(

‘Sener

JOHNANTOON II

UNIZED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Party OrlP-4 5/7

Footnotes

1 Although Petitioner also filed a notice of appeal (Doc. 20), the Court retains jurisdiction to consider and deny the instant post-judgment motions. See Mahone v. Ray, 326 F. 3d 1176, 1179-80 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that, although “the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the district court of jurisdiction over all issues involved in the appeal,” the filing of a notice of appeal “does not prevent the district court from taking action ‘in furtherance of the appeal,’ ” such as a motion filed pursuant to Rule 60, Fed. R. Civ. P.).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Mahone v. RAY, 326 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2003)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

RAGHUBIR v. WARDEN, TAYLOR CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION