DeWitt v. Scott et al

Filing 15

OPINION AND ORDER denying re: 14 MOTION for Reconsideration re 11 Opinion and order. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 10/5/2017. (SLU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
HENRY DEWITT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-450-FtM-38CM

RICK SCOTT, MIKE CAROL, JERRY
BOYAL and DONALD SAWYER,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Henry Dewitt’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. #14) filed on October 2, 2017. On September 21, 2017, the Court
dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider that dismissal.
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

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.

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
(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.
Plaintiff presents no new law, facts, or manifest injustice necessary for the Court
to reconsider the dismissal of his Complaint. While Plaintiff argues that he had no
knowledge that the filing fee needed to be paid or a request for IFP needed to be made
within thirty days of his Complaint being filed, the Court’s Standing Order (Doc. #6)
explicitly informed Plaintiff of what was required. (Doc. #2, ¶2). Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration is due to be denied.

2

Plaintiff’s Complaint was denied without prejudice and, therefore, he may file a new
case under a separate case number. Plaintiff is reminded that under the Local Rules of
the Middle District of Florida, the Clerk will accept for filing all prisoner cases filed with or
without the filing fee or application to proceed in forma pauperis. However, a prisoner
case will be subject to dismissal, sua sponte, if the filing fee is not paid or the application
is not filed within 30 days of the commencement of the action. M.D. Fla. Local Rule
1.03(e).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff Henry Dewitt’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #14) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 5th day of October, 2017.

Copies:
Henry Dewitt
All Counsel of Record
SA: FtMP-2

3