FAISON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

S.D. Fla. | 2020-08-28
No. 19-25264-CIV
District Court, S.D. Florida (2020) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Another De Novo Review (D.E. 11), filed on February 14, 2020. THE COURT has considered the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. On January 29, 2020, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Reid’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed the complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as Plaintiff is a “three striker” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) who failed to pay the filing fee. After this Court entered final judgment, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Since the objections are untimely, the Court will liberally construe them as a motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration “is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Colomar v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 671, 684 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (quoting Bautista v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int’l, N.V., 350 F. Supp. 2d 987, 992 (S.D. Fla. 2004)).

A motion for reconsideration “will not be granted absent an intervening change in the law, availability of newly discovered evidence, or to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id.; see also Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F. 3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (noting that a party cannot use a motion for reconsideration “to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment’).

Reviewing the objections, the Court finds that they do not alter the final judgment. Petitioner fails to make any new arguments as to why he is not a three striker, or why any exception to that rule applies to his case.

Thus, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 28th of August 2020.

FEDERICO A. MORENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Matthew Faison 038634-CI-125 Calhoun Correctional Institution Inmate Mail/Parcels 19562 SE Institution Drive Blountstown, FL 32424

PRO SE

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Disc. Sleep OF Ocala, LLC v. City OF Ocala, 245 So. 3d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
    …h DCA 2002). In the end, the claims of the class representatives and putative class members are not antagonistic, and the trial court erred in concluding that this element of rule 1.220(a) had not been established. See Colomar v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 671, 677 (S.D. Fla. 2007) ("[T]ypicality is often met when, in proving her case, the representative plaintiff establishes the elements needed to prove the class members' case."). The trial court's consideration of the merits during the class certificati…
  • Lingard v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2024)
    …r, or manifest injustice, ‘the movant must do more than simply restate his or her previous arguments[.]' (citing Compania de Elaborados de Cafe v. Cardinal Cap. Mgmt., Inc., 401 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2003)); Colomar v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 671, 684 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (explaining that a party cannot show clear error or manifest injustice by “merely reargu[ing] points previously considered and rejected by the [c]ourt"). Rather, clear error or manifest injustice occurs where the court “has pat…
  • Martinez v. D2C, LLC (S.D. Fla. 2024)
    …6th Cir. 2005) (“[T[he party seeking class certification bears the burden of showing impracticability and mere speculation as to the number of parties involved is not sufficient to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1).”) (cleaned up); Colomar v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 671, 676 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (Seitz, J.) (denying certification where the plaintiff offered “no means for rationally estimating which number of the total uninsureds are class members,” as the plaintiff “cannot simply rely on the 24,000 figure and ask the C…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw