Harder v. Hunter et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 51 Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal and/or Amended Motion for Reconsideration, Clarification and Amplification. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 11/13/2013. (BJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
CHARLES E. HARDER, acting for
wife Diana,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:12-cv-799-J-32JBT

MARK HUNTER, Sheriff of Columbia
County, and COLUMBIA COUNTY
COMMISSION,
Defendants.
__________________________________
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal and/or Amended Motion
for Reconsideration, Clarification and Amplification (“Motion”) (Doc. 51), filed on November
4, 2013. On October 9, 2013, the Court entered an Order granting Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 22), dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice, denying
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as moot, and directing the Clerk of Court to close
the file. (Doc. 46.)
Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its ruling and, alternatively, files his Motion
as a notice of appeal. Upon due consideration, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed
to meet the burden of establishing the extraordinary circumstances supporting
reconsideration. See Am. Ass’n of People With Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337,
1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (“Reconsideration of a Court's previous order is an extraordinary
remedy,” not an opportunity to “simply reargue an issue the Court has once determined.”).
Therefore, the Motion is due to be denied.

The Court’s review of the applicable law indicates that Plaintiff’s purported notice
of appeal does not prohibit the entry of this Order. Whether the Motion is technically a
motion to alter or amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a motion for relief
from the October 9, 2013 Order under Rule 60, “[a] notice [of appeal] filed before the filing
of [either such motion] or after the filing of a motion but before disposition of the motion is,
in effect, suspended until the motion is disposed of, whereupon, the previously filed notice
effectively places jurisdiction in the court of appeals.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) advisory
committee’s note. Moreover, even if the Court did lack the authority to grant the Motion,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a) permits the Court to deny the Motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal and/or Amended
Motion for Reconsideration, Clarification and Amplification (Doc. 51) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on this 13th day of November,
2013.

bjb.
Copies:
Pro se plaintiff
Counsel of Record

2