Gilliam v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Filing 81

OPINION and ORDER denying plaintiff's 78 Motion for Reason why Certain Parts of the Plaintiff's Evidence Ignored. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/18/2019. (CMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EDWARD LEE GILLIAM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

2:16-cv-255-FtM-29UAM

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for
Reason why Certain Parts of the Plaintiff’s Evidence Ignored (Doc.
#78) filed on April 1, 2019, which the Court construes as a motion
for reconsideration.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion

is denied.
I.
“Reconsideration

of

a

Court's

previous

order

is

an

extraordinary remedy and, thus, is a power which should be used
sparingly.”

Am. Ass'n of People With Disabilities v. Hood, 278

F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003)(citation omitted).
courts

have

delineated

three

major

grounds

“The

justifying

reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.”

Sussman v. Salem, Saxon &

Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994).

II.
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Opinion and
Order (Doc. #75) because he believes the Court committed clear
error

when

it

“completely

ignored”

plaintiff’s

response

opposition and plaintiff’s Documentation of Case Events.
#78, p. 1.)

in

(Doc.

Plaintiff argues that if the Court had considered

these documents, the Court would have found “irrefutable” evidence
of “a severe [w]rongful [t]ermination” and thus would have denied
defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The Court finds no merit in this

argument.
Plaintiff’s response simply contains bare legal conclusions
and recounts the elements of each cause of action asserted in the
Third Amended Complaint.

Thus, the response failed to demonstrate

how the Third Amended Complaint set forth any viable causes of
action.

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To avoid

dismissal, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
(citation and quotation omitted)); Mamani v. Berzain, 654 F.3d
1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Legal conclusions without adequate
factual support are entitled to no assumption of truth.” (citations
omitted)).
As to plaintiff’s Documentation of Case Events, this document
is comprised of plaintiff’s commentary and his interpretation of
the timeline of events leading up to this lawsuit.

- 2 -

Like the

response, the Documentation of Case Events failed to set forth
sufficient factual allegations “to raise [plaintiff’s] right to
relief above the speculative level.”

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Plaintiff also asserts that the Court “robotically ignores”
the “egregious fact” that defendant asserted a sovereign immunity
defense to avoid liability for its “high crimes and misdemeanors
committed against Plaintiff.”

(Doc. #78, p. 2.)

Plaintiff has

set forth no basis for reconsideration of the Court’s finding as
to sovereign immunity – aside from his belief that its application
is “unreasonable and ridiculous.”

(Id.)

The Court therefore need

not again address the merits of defendant’s sovereign immunity
defense.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff has
failed to identify a “need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.”

Sussman, 153 F.R.D. at 694.

Plaintiff’s

motion is therefore denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Plaintiff's

Motion

for

Reason

why

Certain

Plaintiff’s Evidence Ignored (Doc. #78) is DENIED.

- 3 -

Parts

of

the

DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of April, 2019.

Copies:
Parties and Counsel of Record

- 4 -

18th

day