Haskew v. Trump

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: November 10, 2020
• Docket: 8:19-cv-02976
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

JOHN MICHAEL HASKEW,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:19-cv-2976-T-36SPF

DONALD TRUMP,

Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 17], filed on June 8, 2020. In the motion, Plaintiff seeks relief from the Court’s Order approving his Notice of Dismissal and dismissing the case. [Doc. 17]. Upon review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds warranting reconsideration of the Court’s prior order. This Court has previously stated that “[r]econsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy,” and “[a] Court will not alter a prior decision absent a showing of clear and obvious error where ‘the interest of justice’ demand[s] correction.” Wynne v. Cape Coral Charter Sch. Auth., No. 2:13-CV-172-FTM-38DNF, 2013 WL 12169481, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2013) (first citing Ludwig v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insur. Co., 2005 WL 1053691 at *3 (M.D. Fla, 2005); then citing Prudential Securities, Inc. v. Emerson, 919 F.Supp. 415 (M.D. Fla. 1996)). To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must present new facts or law of a strongly convincing nature.” Lomax v. Ruvin, 476 F. App'x 175, 177 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Slomcenski v. Citibank, N.A., 432 F.3d 1271, 1276 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005)). Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating via facts or law of a strongly convincing nature that reconsideration is required. In addition, Plaintiffhas notcome forward with new evidence, nor has he demonstrated that reconsideration is required to correct an error or to prevent manifest injustice. In fact, Plaintiff—who is pro se—merely specifies “refund $400” and incorrectly states that “[t]he [C]ourt did not deny the magistrate judge’s [8] recommendation [that he] did not have to pay” his filing fees. [Doc. 17]. This is not sufficient to warrant reconsideration. Accordingly, itis hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 10, 2020.

Chak Dane arnde } tong Api yell □□ Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge Copies to: Counsel of Record and Unrepresented Parties, if any