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)

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