Carlos Shaarbay v. The State of Florida

Eleventh Circuit

Carlos Shaarbay v. The State of Florida

269 F. App'x 866

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 2008

Docket07-13745

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 F. App'x 866 (Carlos Shaarbay v. The State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlos Shaarbay v. The State of Florida, 269 F. App'x 866 (11th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Shaarbay, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his requests for reconsideration regarding the district court’s previous order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil complaint as frivolous.

We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider a final judgment. Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. *867 —, 128 S.Ct. 660, 169 L.Ed.2d 511 (2007). “A post-judgment motion may be treated as made pursuant to either [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 59 or 60-re-gardless of how the motion is styled by the movant-depending on the type of relief sought.” Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir.1997). “Rule 59 applies to motions for reconsideration of matters encompassed in a decision on the merits of a dispute.” Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc., 891 F.2d 886, 889 (11th Cir.1990). However, Rule 59(e) cannot be used “to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir.2005). By way of contrast, “the purpose of a Rule 60(b) motion is to permit the trial judge to reconsider matters so that he can correct obvious errors or injustices and so perhaps obviate the laborious process of appeal.” Carter By and Through Carter v. U.S., 780 F.2d 925, 928 (11th Cir.1986) (quotations and alterations omitted).

Shaarbay’s various post-judgment pleadings essentially constituted a request for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing his complaint under Rule 59(e). However, Shaai’bay merely restated his challenges to his underlying conviction that the district court had already rejected. As a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his requests for reconsideration, because a party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion “to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” See Michael Linet, Inc., 408 F.3d at 763.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Shaarbay, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his requests for reconsideration regarding the district court’s previous order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil complaint as frivolous.

We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider a final judgment. Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. *867 —, 128 S.Ct. 660, 169 L.Ed.2d 511 (2007). “A post-judgment motion may be treated as made pursuant to either [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 59 or 60-re-gardless of how the motion is styled by the movant-depending on the type of relief sought.” Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir.1997). “Rule 59 applies to motions for reconsideration of matters encompassed in a decision on the merits of a dispute.” Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc., 891 F.2d 886, 889 (11th Cir.1990). However, Rule 59(e) cannot be used “to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir.2005). By way of contrast, “the purpose of a Rule 60(b) motion is to permit the trial judge to reconsider matters so that he can correct obvious errors or injustices and so perhaps obviate the laborious process of appeal.” Carter By and Through Carter v. U.S., 780 F.2d 925, 928 (11th Cir.1986) (quotations and alterations omitted).

Shaarbay’s various post-judgment pleadings essentially constituted a request for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing his complaint under Rule 59(e). However, Shaai’bay merely restated his challenges to his underlying conviction that the district court had already rejected. As a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his requests for reconsideration, because a party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion “to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” See Michael Linet, Inc., 408 F.3d at 763.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 F. App'x 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlos-shaarbay-v-the-state-of-florida-ca11-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack