Opinion
Case No. 2:06-cv-212-FtM-99DNF.
September 13, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Emergency Motion to Reinstate Case and Motion for Reconsideration Order Denying Emergency Injunction and Restraining Order and Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Douglas N. Frazier (Doc. #20) filed on September 8, 2006. Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its August 25, 2006, Order denying her Emergency Motion for Injunction and Restraining Order and Motion to Strike Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Douglas N. Frazier (Doc. #17). Plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of the Court's August 28, 2006, Opinion and Order adopting the Report and Recommendations, denying plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel and denying plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #18).
Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an extraordinary remedy and, thus, is a power which should be used sparingly.American Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (citing Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072-73 (M.D. Fla. 1993)). The courts have "delineated three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Sussman v. Salem, Saxon Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
"A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely readdress issues litigated previously." PaineWebber Income Props. Three Ltd. P'ship v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995). The motion must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to demonstrate to the court the reason to reverse its prior decision. Taylor Woodrow, 814 F. Supp. at 1073; PaineWebber, 902 F. Supp. at 1521. "When issues have been carefully considered and decisions rendered, the only reason which should commend reconsideration of that decision is a change in the factual or legal underpinning upon which the decision was based. Taylor Woodrow, 814 F. Supp. at 1072-73.
A motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue — or argue for the first time — an issue the Court has once determined. Court opinions "are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure." Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988). "The burden is upon the movant to establish the extraordinary circumstances supporting reconsideration." Mannings v. School Bd. of Hillsborough County, Fla., 149 F.R.D. 235, 235 (M.D. Fla. 1993). Unless the movant's arguments fall into the limited categories outlined above, a motion to reconsider must be denied.
Plaintiff contends that reconsideration is necessary to correct clear error and prevent manifest injustice. In support of this contention, however, plaintiff has done no more than reargue the merits of her position in the Emergency Motion for Injunction and Restraining Order and Motion to Strike Report and Recommendation. The Court has rejected that position and plaintiff has provided no reason to reconsider that decision. Thus, the Court concludes that plaintiff's motion is due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Emergency Motion to Reinstate Case and Motion for Reconsideration Order Denying Emergency Injunction and Restraining Order and Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Douglas N. Frazier (Doc. #20) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.