Kondapalli v. Fidelity National Information Services

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

KIRAN KUMAR REDDY KONDAPALLI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:22-cv-896-TJC-PDB

FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES,

Defendant.

ORDER This case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Kiran Kumar Reddy Kondapalli’s Response to Court’s Order Issued in Docket 11 (Doc. 12), which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration. Kondapalli has not presented any “newly-discovered evidence” nor identified any “manifest errors of law or fact” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted), nor has Kondapalli shown that any of the scenarios in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) apply here. Further, Kondapalli’s response does not address any of the deficiencies noted by the Court in its September 6, 2022 Order. (Docs. 11 at 2–3; 12). The complaint is still a shotgun complaint and the facts—both those alleged in the complaint and the additional facts raised in the response—do not relate to the claims alleged. See (Docs. 1, 11, 12). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12) is DENIED.! DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida the 21st day of September, 2022.

Cimotheg Corrig on (Ny) TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN <=es" —*United States District Judge ckm Copies: Pro se Plaintiff (by mail and email) Kiran Kumar Reddy Kondapalli 55 Starnberg Ct. St. Augustine, FL 32095 kirankondapalli@gmail.com

1 In the response, Kondapalli begins by stating: “PLAINTIFF REQUESTS TO APPEAL THE DENIED INJUNCTION AND WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER TO OBTAIN INJUNCTION.” (Doc. 12 at 1). If Kondapalli would like to appeal this Order or the Court’s September 6, 2022 Order, Kondapalli should file a separate Notice of Appeal.