Fleetwood et al v. Florida Bar Association et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Ruling and a Final Order. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 6/5/2013. (ams)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 13-60446-COHN
DR. CLIFFORD FLEETWOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
FLORIDA BAR ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Dr. Clifford Fleetwood’s “Motion
for a Ruling and a Final Order in Case # 13-CIV-60446" [DE 12]. The Court has
considered the motion, the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised in the
premises.
On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff brought suit against a wide variety of Defendants
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging, among other things, malicious prosecution and
defamation, and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 6, 2013, Magistrate
Judge Patrick A. White issued a Report re Dismissal of Successive Complaint, 28
§ 1915(g) [DE 6] (“Report”), recommending that the Court deny the Application to
Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs [DE 3], and dismiss the
Complaint as successive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). On April 10, 2013, the Court
issued an Order Adopting Report of Magristate Judge [DE 8], adopting Judge White’s
Report and dismissing the case. In the instant motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court
erred in dismissing the case without allowing Plaintiff to serve Defendants with the

Complaint, and asserts that he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. He
further contends that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that the Court
enter a final order in all civil cases, and close the said case is illegal.” DE 12 at 2.
Based on the relief requested, the motion appears to be a motion for
reconsideration of the Order Adopting Report of Magristate Judge. A motion for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is made for the purposes of correcting
manifest errors of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence. Burger King
Corp. v. Ashland Equities, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002).
Reconsideration of an order is “an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.”
Gathagan v. Rag Shop / Hollywood, Inc., No. 04-805200-CIV, 2005 WL 6504749 at *1
(S.D. Fla. May 9, 2005) (quoting Sussman v. Salem, Saxon, & Nielsen, P.A., 153
F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994)). The three grounds that would justify reconsideration
are “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence;
and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Burger King, 181
F. Supp. 2d, at 1369.
Here, Plaintiff has not pointed to any change in controlling law, has not submitted
new evidence, and has not articulated any legal or factual error made by the Court.
Plaintiff asserts that the Court erred, but does not present any grounds for that
assertion. Moreover, inasmuch as Plaintiff seeks a final order, such relief has already
been granted: the Order Adopting Report of Magistrate Judge dismissed the Complaint
and closed the case. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Dr. Clifford Fleetwood’s “Motion
for a Ruling and a Final Order in Case # 13-CIV-60446" [DE 12] is DENIED.
2

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 5th day of June, 2013.

Copies provided to:
Dr. Clifford Fleetwood, pro se
1601 E. Las Olas Boulevard
# 209
Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301

3