Mitchell v. Perdido Trucking

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICO MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PERDIDO TRUCKING,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-00304-KD-B
ORDER
This 	action 	is 	before 	the 	Court 	on 	Plaintiff’s 	motion
requesting reconsideration of the denial of his motion to compel.
(Doc. 38). 	Upon consideration, the motion is DENIED.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff, 	proceeding 	without 	counsel, 	filed 	the 	instant
employment 	discrimination 	action 	against 	his 	former 	employer.
(Doc. 1). 	Following 	a 	scheduling 	conference 	with 	the 	Court 	on
October 11, 	2024, 	Plaintiff 	filed 	a 	document 	titled 	“Brief”.1
(Doc. 25). 	The 	document 	contains 	various 	factual 	allegations 	and
what appears to be case citations. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff later filed
a 	motion 	to 	compel 	Defendant 	to 	file 	a 	response 	to 	his 	brief.
(Doc. 33). 	Upon 	consideration, 	the 	Court 	denied 	Plaintiff’s
motion 	and 	observed 	that 	the 	brief 	was 	neither 	ordered 	nor
1 	At an in-person scheduling conference on October 11, 2024, the
Court 	discussed 	Plaintiff’s 	rights 	and 	responsibilities 	as 	a 	pro
se litigant in federal court.
Case 1:24-cv-00304-KD-B Doc# 40 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

2
authorized by the Court. (Id. at 2). 	The Court also explained to
Plaintiff 	that 	his 	brief 	did 	not 	constitute 	a 	proper 	form 	of
discovery, 	and 	that 	if 	he 	wished 	“to 	serve 	written 	discovery
requests upon the Defendant, he was required to do so in the form
of 	written 	interrogatories, 	see 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 	requests 	for
production 	of 	documents, 	see 	Fed. R. Civ. 	P. 34, 	or 	requests 	for
admissions, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 36.” 	(Id.). 	Rather than adhering
to 	the 	Court’s 	instructions 	and 	serving 	proper 	written 	discovery
on Defendant, Plaintiff filed the instant motion asking the Court
to reconsider the denial of his motion to compel.
II. Legal Standard
Reconsideration 	is 	an 	extraordinary 	remedy 	which 	will 	be
granted 	only 	upon 	a 	showing 	of 	one 	of 	the 	following: 	(1) 	an
intervening change in law, (2) the discovery of new evidence which
was not available at the time the Court rendered its decision, or
(3) 	the 	need 	to 	correct 	clear 	error 	or 	manifest 	injustice. 	Fla.
Coll. 	of 	Osteopathic 	Med. 	Inc. 	v. 	Dean 	Witter 	Reynolds, 	Inc.,
12 F. Supp. 2d 	1306, 	1308 	(M.D. 	Fla. 	1998). 	"A 	motion 	for
reconsideration 	cannot 	be 	used 	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., 555 F.3d
949, 	957 	(11th 	Cir. 	2009) 	(internal 	quotation 	marks 	omitted). 	A
motion for reconsideration is “not the proper forum for the party
to 	vent 	dissatisfaction 	with 	the 	Court’s 	reasoning.” 	Roberts 	v.
Case 1:24-cv-00304-KD-B Doc# 40 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

3
I.R.S., 	2014 	U.S. 	Dist. 	LEXIS 	3225, 	2014 	WL 	103881, 	at 	*1
(M.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2014). 	Instead, the moving party must clearly
“set 	forth 	facts 	or 	law 	of 	a 	strongly 	convincing 	nature 	to
demonstrate to the Court the reason to reverse its prior decision”.
Galati v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97750
at *4, 2024 WL 2815281 at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2024) (quoting Am.
Ass’n 	of 	People 	With 	Disabilities 	v. 	Hood, 	278 F. Supp. 	2d 	1337,
1339 	(M.D. Fla. 	2002)) 	(other 	citations 	omitted). 	Plaintiff 	has
not 	set 	forth 	any 	facts 	or 	law 	which 	warrant 	reconsideration 	of
the Court’s prior ruling. 	A brief is not a proper form of discovery
and the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel does not
excuse 	him 	from 	submitting 	discovery 	requests 	that 	are 	in 	the
proper 	format 	and 	that 	comply 	with 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil
Procedure.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff 	has 	failed 	to 	demonstrate 	why 	the 	extraordinary
remedy 	of 	reconsideration 	is 	warranted 	here. 	Accordingly, 	his
motion seeking reconsideration is DENIED.
DONE this 26th day of November, 2024.
/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00304-KD-B Doc# 40 Filed 11/26/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>