Opinion
CV 624-021
11-14-2024
CYRILLE KOUAMBO BECKODRO, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHEAST TIRE & SERVICES, Defendant.
ORDER
HON. J. RANDAL HALL JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this Court's July 8, 2024 Order dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 11.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the instant action in this Court on April 30, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On May 15, 2024, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff's complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 4, at 1.) The Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to "file an amended complaint that demonstrates a valid basis for federal jurisdiction, . . . and include all matters he wishes the Court to consider in that one document." (Id. at 3.)
Plaintiff thereafter filed two amended complaints. (Docs. 7, 8.) However, on July 8, 2024, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's second amended complaint without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 9, at 1-2.) Regarding federal question jurisdiction, the second amended complaint named various congressional acts through which Plaintiff sought relief, but it "never mention[ed] any provisions of the cited statutes, let alone identifie[d] an avenue for relief by connecting any fact alleged to a legal claim." (Id. at 2.) Further, Plaintiff "[did] not plausibly allege [] the amount in controversy" required to establish diversity jurisdiction. (Id.)
II. DICUSSION
Plaintiff now asks this Court to "reconsider dismissing the case and provide an opportunity for a comprehensive review of the facts and circumstances leading to the present dispute." (Doc. 11, at 7.) While a court may reconsider a final order or judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60, Rule 59 governs motions for reconsideration filed within twenty-eight days of the court's order. Brown v. Spells, No. 7:11-cv-91, 2011 WL 4543905, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2011); accord Mahone v. Ray, 326 F.3d 1176, 1177 n.l (11th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff filed his motion fourteen days after the Court's July 8, 2024 Order; therefore, the Court analyzes the motion under Rule 59(e).
Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is justified only when there is: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Schiefer v. United States, No. CV206-206, 2007 WL 2071264, at *2 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2007). Rule 59(e) "cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) (alteration adopted).
Plaintiff does not argue reconsideration is appropriate because of a change in law, new evidence, or clear error; rather, his motion for reconsideration asserts new causes of action in what is essentially a third amended complaint. (Doc. 11.) Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff fails to establish any basis for reconsideration under the law of this Circuit, and Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Because Plaintiff's claim was dismissed without prejudice (Doc. 9), the appropriate avenue by which he may assert new law or facts to establish jurisdiction is to file a new case. See Semtek Int'1 Inc, v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505 (2001) (holding dismissal without prejudice does not bar plaintiff "from returning later, to the same court, with the same underlying claim").
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 11) is DENIED and this case stands CLOSED.
ORDER ENTERED.