Opinion
6:06-mc-1.
August 31, 2011
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff Warren Skillern's ("Plaintiff") "Rule 59(e) Motion," see Doc. 41, and "Motion To Reopen Affected Cases," see Doc. 42.
"[T]he only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact. A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
Plaintiff alleges no newly-discovered evidence. See Doc. 41. Plaintiff claims that this Court committed a manifest error of fact by misconstruing the effect of its 2006 injunction. See id. at 1. Plaintiff, however, contradicts himself when he says that it was not the "admitted illegal injunction [that] stopped [Plaintiff] from prosecuting any of his cases. It was the injunction's effect that stopped [Plaintiff]. . . ." Id. Thus, Plaintiff alleges no manifest error of fact.
Plaintiff continues to make unsupported allegations that this Court is without jurisdiction in this case. See Doc. 41 at 1-2. Plaintiff has identified no manifest error of law. Plaintiff is attempting to relitigate old matters. Plaintiff's "Rule 59(e) Motion," see Doc. 41, is DENIED.
Plaintiff seeks to reopen all of his former cases, again blaming this Court's 2006 injunction for his failure to litigate them successfully. See Doc. 42. Plaintiff is essentially re-filing the motion that this Court denied in its August 18, 2011 Order. See Doc. 37. For the reasons stated in that Order, his latest motion to reopen, see Doc. 42, is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's "Rule 59(e) Motion," see Doc. 41, is DENIED.Plaintiff's "Motion to Reopen Affected Cases," see Doc. 42, is DENIED.