Real v. The City of Fort Myers et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying 52 Plaintiff Mamberto Real's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 5/29/2018. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MAMBERTO REAL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-117-FtM-38CM

THE CITY OF FORT MYERS,
MICHEL PERRY and MICHAEL
PERRY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Mamberto Real’s Motion for
Reconsideration. (Doc. 52). The Court dismissed without prejudice his case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 51), which Real now claims was done “by mistake or
error” (Doc. 52). For the following reasons, the Court denies Real’s motion.
A district court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion
for reconsideration. See Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2006). In
exercising its discretion, the court balances two competing interests: the need for finality
and the need to render just rulings based on all the facts. The former typically prevails,
as reconsideration of an order is an extraordinarily remedy used sparingly. See Am.
Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003);

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.

Lamar Adver. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999).
“A motion for reconsideration must demonstrate why the court should reconsider its prior
decision and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to
reverse its prior decision.” Fla. Coll. of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds,
Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998).
Courts recognize three grounds to justify reconsideration of a prior order: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need
to correct a clear error or manifest injustice. See McCreary v. Brevard Cnty, Fla., No.
6:09-cv-1394, 2010 WL 2836709, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2010). “A motion to reconsider
is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments the [c]ourt has already rejected or for attempting
to refute the basis for the [c]ourt’s earlier decision.” Parker v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc.,
874 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1359 (M.D. Fla. 2012); see also Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of
Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). “A motion to reconsider should raise new
issues, not merely redress issues previously litigated.” PaineWebber Income Props.
Three Ltd. P’ship v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995); see also
Ludwig v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 8:03-cv-2378, 2005 WL 1053691, at *11 (M.D.
Fla. Mar. 30, 2005) (stating “a motion for reconsideration is not the proper forum for [a]
party to vent dissatisfaction with the Court’s reasoning”).
Here, Real has not demonstrated any ground to justify the Court reconsidering its
prior Order. He has shown neither an intervening change in controlling law nor new
evidence that has become available. He similarly does not show how reconsideration is
necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. This is particularly so
where the Court dismissed his case without prejudice and he has filed another case

2

claiming similar issues. See Real v. Perry, No. 2:18-cv-331-FtM-29CM (M.D. Fla. May
11, 2018). The Court thus denies Real’s motion.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff Mamberto Real’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 52) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 29th day of May 2018.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3