Pennant v. Department of the Air Force

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: June 16, 2025
• Docket: 8:24-cv-02734
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

GENISE A. PENNANT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:24-cv-2734-KKM-LSG

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

Defendant.

ORDER On May 22, 2025, I adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, denied Genise Pennant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed Pennant’s case with prejudice. Dismissal Order (Doc. 15). e Clerk

entered judgment accordingly. (Doc. 17). On June 11, 2025, Pennant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal order. (Doc. 19); see FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e).

Pennant argues that reconsideration is warranted because the order erred in denying her motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deprived her of access to court. Id. at 1–2 (asserting that “denial of IFP status creates an undue hardship and effectively bar[s] access to the courts due to inability to pay the filing fee”). Pennant also

includes with her motion a check to cover the filing fee, funds that Pennant alleges she received from her children. (Doc. 19-1) at 2.

Pennant is not entitled to relief. In denying her motion and dismissing her case, I reached three conclusions. First, I concluded that Pennant failed to provide

adequate evidence of indigency. R&R (Doc. 14) at 6–7 (listing this basis); Dismissal Order at 2 (adopting Report and Recommendation). Second, I concluded that Pennant failed to file a proper complaint. R&R at 7–8 (listing this basis); Dismissal

Order at 2. ird, I concluded that Pennant’s action was untimely. R&R at 8–11 (listing this basis); Dismissal Order at 2. e third basis provided the predicate for

dismissing Pennant’s case with prejudice. See R&R at 11; Dismissal Order at 2. Pennant’s motion address only the first basis and she does not show that the

other two bases—especially the determination that her action is untimely—are incorrect. In other words, Pennant has not carried her burden as the Rule 59(e) movant to demonstrate that the judgment is predicated on a manifest error of law or

fact, or that newly discovered evidence requires a different disposition. See Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Pennant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19) is DENIED.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 16, 2025.

} onal at Mizelle United States District Judge