UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-20777-BLOOM

DOUGLAS MARSHALL JACKSON,

Plaintiff, v.

THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (FDOC), INC., et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. [36] (“Motion”). The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied. A motion for reconsideration requests that the Court grant “an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc.,

(S.D. Fla. 2002). A party may not use a motion for reconsideration to “relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla.,

(11th Cir. 2005)). Within this framework, however, a court may grant reconsideration 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. Hood v. Perdue, 300 F. App’x. 699, 700 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, a motion to reconsider is “appropriate where, for example, the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error Case No. 20-cv-20777-BLOOM

not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Kapila v. Grant Thornton, LLP, No. 14-61194-CIV,

, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2017) (quoting ZK. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis,

(S.D. Fla. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration “is not an opportunity for the moving party ... to instruct the court on how the court ‘could have done it better’ the first time.” Hood, 300 F. App’x at 700 (citation omitted). Upon review, Plaintiff's Motion is due to be denied because Plaintiff fails to set forth any ground warranting reconsideration. The Motion amounts to no more than disagreement with the Court’s reasoning and ultimate conclusions in the Court’s Omnibus Order, ECF No. [29], which is not a proper basis for reconsideration. See Z.K. Marine Inc,

(“It is an improper use of the motion to reconsider to ask the Court to rethink what the Court already though through—tightly or wrongly.”’) (citation and alterations omitted); see also Roggio v. United States,

, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013) (“[W]hen there is mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted.”) (internal citation and quotations omitted). In addition, Plaintiff appears to raise in part the same argument as in his previous Petition for Rehearing, ECF No. [34], regarding the Court’s misconstruing his claims by assuming that the claims were made on his own behalf, which argument the Court has already rejected. See ECF No. [35]. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. [36], is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 12, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Douglas Marshall Jackson, pro se 823916 Sumter Correctional Institution Inmate Mail/Parcels 9544 County Road 476B Bushnell, FL 33513