Williams v. Williams

Filing 21

Order Denying Motion to Reopen Case re 20 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 6/28/2021. See attached document for full details. (ebz) Modified text on 6/29/2021 (ebz).

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Anthony Williams, Plaintiff,
v.
Anthony Troy Williams, and others,
Defendants.

)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 16-61202-Civ-Scola
)
)

Order Denying Motion to Reopen Case
On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants for intentional
infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and identity theft. (ECF No. 1.) On June
16, 2016, in performing a preliminary examination of the record to determine if
jurisdiction exists, the Court noted that although this case is captioned on the
docket as a case raising a federal question, the only federal statutes cited in the
complaint were banking statutes that have been repealed. (Order Requiring
Am. Compl., ECF No. 7.) In addition, the Court found that diversity jurisdiction
did not exist, because the Complaint alleged that both the Plaintiff and the
named Defendant live in Florida. (Id.) Notwithstanding, the Court gave the
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by June 30, 2016, which
adequately alleged the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (Id.) The Court
warned the Plaintiff that a failure to file an amended complaint would result in
dismissal. (Id.) The Plaintiff failed to file the required amended complaint. On
August 2, 2016, the Court sent another order giving the Plaintiff until August
12, 2016 to file an amended complaint and also instructing the Plaintiff to file
proposed summons. (ECF No. 12.) Once again, the Plaintiff did not comply.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s case on August 22, 2016. (ECF
No. 14.)
On March 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider and/or
vacate the Court’s order dismissing the case. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) The Court
denied that motion for several reasons. (ECF No. 20.) First, the Plaintiff alleged
that he and the Defendants resided in the same jurisdiction, therefore failing to
cure the deficiencies in the original complaint. Second, the Plaintiff argued that
reconsideration was appropriate under Rule 1.420 of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure, which is not a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Thus, it is only
applicable in state court proceedings. Lastly, the Court found that the Plaintiff
had not shown that the Court had misunderstood the Plaintiff’s complaint or

the facts of the case, that there was a change in controlling case law, or that
there is manifest injustice. See Vila v. Padron, 2005 WL 6104075, at *1 (S.D.
Fla. Mar. 31, 2005) (Altonaga, J.). Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s
motion.
The Plaintiff now seeks to reopen the case. The one-paragraph motion
states “I’m requesting to have case no. 2016-cv-61202 reopened so that I can
properly litigate my case. I am also requesting a copy of the complaint that I
filed so I can revise it and resubmit it.” (ECF No. 20.) Because the motion
essentially seeks that the Court reconsider its earlier orders dismissing the
case and denying reconsidering the dismissal, this Court will apply the
standard for motions to reconsider. The decision to grant or deny a motion for
reconsideration is committed to the district court’s sound discretion. See
Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023-24 (11th Cir. 2000) (reviewing
reconsideration decision for abuse of discretion). Reconsideration is
appropriate only in very limited circumstances, such as where “the Court has
patently misunderstood a party, where there is an intervening change in
controlling law or the facts of a case, or where there is manifest injustice.” Vila,
2005 WL 6104075, at *1.
The Plaintiff has not satisfied his heavy burden. The motion asserts no
facts which would explain why the Plaintiff failed to amend his original
complaint. That the Plaintiff did not have a copy of the original complaint does
not prevent him from filing an amended complaint by the dates ordered by this
Court. Moreover, the motion is silent as to the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction
and thus does not attempt to cure the pleading deficiencies the Court identified
in earlier orders. Nor does the Plaintiff argue that the Court misunderstood the
underlying facts or law, a change in the law, or that there has been manifest
injustice. For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case is denied.
(ECF No. 81.)
Done and Ordered in chambers, at Miami, Florida, on June 28, 2021.
________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to:
Anthony Williams
501602094
Okeechobee Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels

3420 NE 168th Street
Okeechobee, FL 34972