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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?