Alfred v. Florida Supreme Court
Filing
16
OPINION AND ORDER re: denying as moot 15 MOTION for issuance of to rule, denying as moot 14 MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency, denying 11 MOTION to Alter Judgment. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 7/28/2017. (SLU)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JERRY NEIL ALFRED,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No: 2:16-cv-864-FtM-38MRM
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
I.
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Petitioner’s motion to alter or
amend judgment (Doc. #11), motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis
(Doc. #14), and “motion for issuance to rule” (Doc. #15).
In the motion to alter or amend judgment, Petitioner argues that this Court
improperly characterized his petition as one for habeas corpus relief. See generally Doc.
#11.
Instead, Petitioner maintains that he filed a petition for declaratory judgment
against the Florida Supreme Court.
Id. at 2. Petitioner argues that this Court has
jurisdiction:
1
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other
documents or Web sites. 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 Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their
Web sites. 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.
to adjudicate the controversy under Article IV, Section 4, of
the United States Constitution which guarantees citizens of
the United States a republican form of government for every
state [sic] meaning that only the residents of any given state
is superior to its state constitution—a fundamental principle
that the [Florida Supreme Court] clearly violated when it
effected a de facto amendment or revision of the Florida
Constitution [sic] [see Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.
2004)] by stripping noncapital imprisoned persons of the
constitutional right to invoke the Florida Supreme Court’s
habeas corpus jurisdiction.
Id. at 4-5.
II.
Rule 59(e) affords the Court substantial discretion to reconsider an order which it
has entered. See Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1137 (11th Cir. 2000). “The only
grounds for granting a rule 59 motion are newly discovered evidence or manifest error of
law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). A
Rule 59 motion is not intended as a vehicle to re-litigate old matters, raise new arguments
or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment. Id. (citing
Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)).
A[R]econsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed
sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.@ Saadi
v. Maroun, Case No. 8:07-cv-1976-T-24MAP, 2009 WL 3736121 *6 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4,
2009)(internal citations omitted).
“Rule 59 is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments
already rejected by the court or for refuting the court=s prior decision.@ Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a party to seek relief from a final
judgment under specific circumstances such as: “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Rule 60 also provides for a catchall
provision that permits the Court to grant relief from a final judgment “for any other reasons
that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Relief under this provision is “exceedingly
rare” and “does not offer an unsuccessful litigant an opportunity ‘to take a mulligan.’”
Federal Rules Civil Handbook, Rule 60, Reason 6 (quoting Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d
788, 792 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). “Even then, whether to grant the requested relief is a matter
for the district court's sound discretion.” Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir.
2006)(quotation and alteration marks omitted).
III.
The Court finds no reason to grant Plaintiff any relief under either Rule 59 or Rule
60. The Court affirms its order of dismissal. The Court logically construed the action as
one under habeas corpus because Petitioner is in the custody of the Secretary of the
Department of Corrections for a 1998 conviction arising in Miami-Dade Circuit Court in
Florida. Petitioner’s action for declaratory relief against the Florida Supreme Court would
nevertheless be subject to dismissal under the general principles of federalism. See
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (noting federalism is a proper respect for state
functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union and
separate State governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National
Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their
separate functions in separate ways). The federal district court does not sit to invalidate
cases issued by the state courts concerning matters of state law, i.e. whether the Florida
Supreme Court in Baker misapplied Florida law to preclude state prisoners from filing
habeas corpus petitions in Florida state courts.
Id. at 45 (“What the concept does
represent is a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State
and National Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious though it may
be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do
so in ways that will not unduly infer with the legitimate activities of the States. As noted
in this Court’s order of dismissal, Petitioner previously filed a federal habeas petition in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in case number 0721974 (S.D. Fla. 2007), and was denied relief. Petitioner’s federal Constitutional rights
remain intact.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Petitioner’s “motion to alter or amend judgment” (Doc. #11) is DENIED.
2. Petitioner’s “application to proceed in district court without preparing fees or
costs” (Doc. #14) is DENIED as moot.
3. Petitioner’s motion for issuance to rule (Doc. #15) is DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 28th day of July, 2017.
FTMP-1
Copies: All Parties of Record
-4-
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?