VALE v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION

Filing 14

ORDER re 13 MOTION for ReHearing AND MOTION for Reconsideration, re 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by EDWARD VALE is DENIED. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 1/5/2012. (jws)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
EDWARD VALE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 4:11cv501-MP-WCS

FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing and
Reconsideration. (Doc. 13). On December 12, 2011, the Court accepted the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The instant motion seeks relief from that order.
The plaintiff moves the Court for rehearing, pursuant to Rule 40(a) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure are
inapplicable in the United States district courts. As such, the Court construes plaintiff's
request for relief under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the court may
relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . (6) any [ ] reason that
justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). However, “relief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is an
extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances,” and “absent such relief, an extreme and unexpected hardship will result.”
Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984).

Even when such

circumstances exist, “whether to grant the requested relief is a matter for the district court's
sound discretion.” Mock v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 373 Fed. Appx. 989, 991 (11th Cir.
2010).

Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff has failed to show any exceptional circumstances that would justify relief
under Rule 60(b)(6). Rule 60(b) is not intended to be a second opportunity for the losing
party to make its strongest case, to rehash arguments, or to dress-up arguments that
previously failed.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing and reconsideration (doc 13) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2012.

s/

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 4:11cv501-MP-WCS