Eusebio v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: January 30, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00646
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

JUAN DOMINGO EUSEBIO,

Petitioner,

v. Case No: 5:24-cv-646-JSS-PRL

WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN-LOW,

Respondent. /

ORDER Petitioner, Juan Domingo Eusebio, a prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this case by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on December 2, 2024. (Dkt. 1.) That same day, the court ordered Petitioner to pay the required filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days from the commencement of the case. (Dkt. 2 at 2.) Given Petitioner’s failure to pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis, the court dismissed this case on January 8, 2025. (Dkt. 3 at 1.) Petitioner moves for reconsideration. (Dkt. 5 at 1–2.) He claims that he initiated the payment of his filing fee sometime in December after receiving the December 2, 2024 order and again on January 14, 2025, after receiving the order dismissing the case. (See id.) Currently, Petitioner’s filing fee has not been received by the Clerk of the Court. A court’s reconsideration of a prior order is an “extraordinary remedy” that should be used “sparingly.” Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072 (M.D. Fla. 1993); accord Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984) (describing reconsideration as “an extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances”). Although, as Petitioner asserts, he is a pro se prisoner litigant “unskilled in the law,” (see Dkt. 5 at 1), the instant circumstances do not justify reconsideration. See Talbert v. Pennsylvania, 667 F. App’x 778, 780 (3d Cir. 2016) (affirming the denial of a motion for reconsideration when the movant “sought reconsideration based on his pro se status, his imprisonment, and his lack of understanding of the law”). Petitioner may pursue his claim by filing a new petition under a new case number. If he has difficulty timely providing the filing fee, he can request an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 5) is DENIED. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on January 30, 2025.

( fa _ a whesok JUVIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties

_2-