The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ANGELA DEBOSE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:15-cv-2787-T-33AEP
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
pro se Plaintiff Angela DeBose’s Motion for Reconsideration
of its prior Orders denying various motions filed by DeBose.
(Doc. # 609). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is
denied.
I. Background
After the Eleventh Circuit issued a written opinion
affirming this Court’s grant of summary judgment in
Defendants’ favor on certain claims, affirming this Court’s
entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendant
University of South Florida Board of Trustees (“USFBOT”), and
affirming this Court’s denial of DeBose’s request for
attorneys’ fees and costs, (Doc. # 587), DeBose filed a motion
for independent action for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(d). (Doc. # 588). DeBose also filed, in
short succession, a motion for the recusal or reassignment of
the magistrate judge in this matter, a motion for evidentiary
hearing, and a motion for extension of time to file an amended
notice of appeal. (Doc. ## 596, 600, 603).
On June 23, 2020, this Court entered an Order denying
DeBose’s motion for independent action and also denying her
motions for an evidentiary hearing and leave to file an
amended notice of appeal. (Doc. # 607). This Court explained
that DeBose had failed to meet the high standard required to
grant Rule 60(d) motions because she merely sought to
relitigate matters already considered and rejected by this
Court in the years-long litigation leading up to the motion.
(Id.). On June 24, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge
Porcelli, having had the motion for recusal referred to his
chambers, denied the motion for reassignment or recusal as
moot. (Doc. # 608). On June 26, 2020, DeBose filed a motion
for reconsideration of this Court’s Orders of June 23 and 24,
2020. (Doc. # 609).
USFBOT has filed a response in opposition (Doc. # 610),
and the Motion is ripe for review.
II. Legal Standard
“Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60 govern
motions for reconsideration.” Beach Terrace Condo. Ass’n,
Inc. v. Goldring Invs., No. 8:15-cv-1117-T-33TBM, 2015 WL
4548721, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2015). “The time when the
party files the motion determines whether the motion will be
evaluated under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60.” Id. “A Rule 59(e)
motion must be filed within 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.” Id. “Motions filed after the 28–day period will be
decided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).” Id.
Here, the Motion was filed within 28 days of the Court’s
Order, so Rule 59 applies. “The only grounds for granting a
Rule 59 motion are newly discovered evidence or manifest
errors of law or fact.” Anderson v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl.
Prot., 567 F. App’x 679, 680 (11th Cir. 2014)(quoting Arthur
v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)).
Granting relief under Rule 59(e) is “an extraordinary
remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality
and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” United States
v. DeRochemont, No. 8:10-cr-287-T-24MAP, 2012 WL 13510, at *2
(M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2012)(citation omitted). Furthermore, “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.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill.
of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005).
III. Analysis
While DeBose raises various points in her Motion, all of
her arguments crystallize to a single contention – that this
Court erred in denying her motion for independent action.
However, DeBose has not pointed to any new evidence in support
of her Motion. Moreover, DeBose’s arguments are, essentially,
a rehash of the arguments raised in her Rule 60(d) motion.
DeBose has spent considerable time and energy over the course
of this litigation attempting to convince the Court that
sanctions are in order against USFBOT for spoliation of
evidence and various other infractions. As explained in its
prior Order, this Court has considered and rejected these
arguments on multiple occasions. Such arguments are not
permissible on a Rule 59(e) motion.
In sum, DeBose has not met her burden of demonstrating
that newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or
fact merit reconsideration of the Court’s June 23, 2020, or
June 24, 2020, Orders under Rule 59(e). Her motion for
reconsideration must be denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Angela DeBose’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 609)
is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 8th
day of July, 2020.
fase Or. Hecraply □□□
VIR IA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE