Barbary v. United States of America

Filing 23

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration 22 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 10/12/2017. (lan)

Download PDF
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Andre D. Barbary, Movant, v. United States of America, Respondent. ) ) ) Civil Action No. 16-62087-Civ-Scola ) ) Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration Barbary requests that the Court reconsider its order denying his Rule 60(b) motion (ECF No. 21). For the reasons set forth below, Barbary’s motion for reconsideration is denied. The present motion constitutes Barbary’s fourth attempt to argue around the applicable statute of limitations. As he did in his Rule 60(b) motion, (ECF No. 17), Barbary contends that his Rule 33 motion for a new trial was functionally a timely § 2255 motion, which in turn made his untimely § 2255 motion a timely Rule 15(c) motion to amend. See Mot. at 1. The Court previously rejected in its previous order Barbary’s suggested interpretation of the procedural history in this case and the applicable law. See (ECF No. 21). “A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters . . . .” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Instead, a motion for reconsideration remains appropriate where “(1) an intervening change in controlling law has occurred, (2) new evidence has been discovered, or (3) there is a need to correct clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.” Barr v. Harvard Drug Grp., LLC, No. 13-CV-62019-KAM, 2015 WL 11181968, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2015) (Marra, J.) (internal citation and quotations omitted). “The moving party must set forth facts or law of a ‘strongly convincing’ nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Barbary’s motion does not meet any of the three factors required for this Court to grant a motion for reconsideration. Barbary’s motion simply restates the arguments contained in his previous motion, which amount to “mere disagreement” with the Court, and therefore do not support the granting of a motion to reconsider. See Roggio v. United States, No. 11-22847-CIV, 2013 WL 11320226, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013)(Goodman, J.) (“[W]hen there is mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted.”) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Accordingly, after considering the motion, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 22). Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on October 12, 2017. _____________________________ Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?