Jones v. Bank of America

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: October 17, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00646
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

DONALD JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:19-cv-646-FtM-38NPM

BANK OF AMERICA and STATE OF FLORIDA,

Defendants. / ORDER1 Before the Court is Plaintiff Donald Jones’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12). Jones asks the Court to reconsider its Order (Doc. 10) denying his Motion to Recuse (Doc. 7). Courts may reconsider nonfinal orders “at any time before entry of a judgment,” but “reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly.” Asokan v. Am. Gen. Life Ins., 302 F. Supp. 3d 1303, 1310 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (citation omitted). A party requesting reversal of a prior order must make a convincing case, showing “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (citation omitted). Jones does not attempt to make that showing. Nor does Jones offer any legitimate reason

1 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court. for the Court to recuse itself. Contrary to Jones’ demand for recusal, the Court’s impartiality has not been reasonably questioned. So there is no need to reconsider recusal. While the Court understands Jones is unhappy with its ruling, that is not a basis for reconsideration. E.g., Kivisto v. Kulmala, No. 11-CV-81135-RYSKAMP/VITUNAC, 2012 WL 12950275, at *1-2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2012) (“[T]he fact that [plaintiff] is unhappy or disagrees with the Court’s decision is not grounds for reconsideration or recusal.”). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 17th day of October, 2019.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record