Bailem v. State of Florida

Filing 48

OPINION AND ORDER denying re: 44 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 7/18/2017. (SLU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
TREMAINE L. BAILEM,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-18-FtM-38MRM

STATE OF FLORIDA and
SECRETARY, DOC,
Respondents.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on the Petitioner, Tremaine L. Bailem's Motion
to Reconsider (Doc. #44) filed on July 7, 2017. No response in opposition has been filed
but none is needed to rule on the instant Motion. Bailem states that he filed a Motion to
Compel (Doc. #40) prior to his Petition for Habeas Corpus relief was dismissed. Bailem’s
Motion to Compel moved the Court to compel Respondent to produce a full and complete
transcript of his trial. Bailem acknowledges that he at one time had a copy of the trial
transcript, although he said some pages were missing, but alleges Respondent destroyed
it during a search of his cell. Bailem argues that his Motion to Compel was not ruled on

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are
cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By
allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve,
or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites.
Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the Court.

before his case was terminated and now moves the Court to reconsider its Order
dismissing his Petition and rule on his Motion to Compel.
Reconsideration of a court’s previous order is an extraordinary remedy and, thus,
is a power which should be used sparingly. Carter v. Premier Restaurant Management,
2006 WL 2620302 (M.D. Fla. September 13, 2006) (citing American Ass’n of People with
Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003)). The courts have
“delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in
the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error
or prevent manifest injustice.” Susman v. Salem, Saxon & Meilson, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689,
904 (M.D. Fla. 1994). “A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely
readdress issues litigated previously.” Paine Webber Income Props. Three Ltd.
Partnership v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995). The motion
must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to demonstrate to the court the
reason to reverse its prior decision. Carter, 2006 WL 2620302 at *1 (citing Taylor
Woodrow Construction Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Authority, 814 F. Supp. 1072, 10721073 (M.D. Fla. 1993)). A motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to
simply reargue-or argue for the first time- an issue the Court has already determined.
Carter, 2006 WL 2620302 at * 1. The Court’s opinions “are not intended as mere first
drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” Id. (citing Quaker
Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988)). “The
burden is upon the movant to establish the extraordinary circumstances supporting
reconsideration.” Mannings v. School Bd. Of Hillsboro County, Fla., 149 F.R.D. 235, 235

2

(M.D. Fla. 1993). “Unless the movant’s arguments fall into the limited categories outlined
above, a motion to reconsider must be denied.” Carter, 2006 WL 2620302 at *1.
On June 26, 2017, the Court dismissed Bailem’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus. In the Court’s Order (Doc. #41), the Court terminated all remaining pending
motions due to the fact that the case was dismissed. Therefore, Bailem’s Motion to
Compel was terminated as moot because the case was closed. Bailem does not provide
the Court with any new facts or law that would cause the Court to reconsider its previous
ruling and reopen the case to compel production of the trial transcript or any other
discovery. Further, with the case being closed there is no longer a need for the discovery.
Consequently, Bailem’s Motion for Reconsideration is due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Petitioner, Tremaine L. Bailem's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #44) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 18th day of July, 2017.

Copies:
Tremaine L. Bailem
All Parties of Record
SA: FtMP-2

3