SHEETS
v.
GORMAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this pro se civil rights case, the district court denied plaintiff Andrew Sheets' motion for reconsideration of a dismissal entered for failure to pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis. The court held that plaintiff presented no extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration under Rule 59(e), and that prior inconsistent treatment in other cases did not excuse compliance with filing fee requirements.
The court held that no extraordinary circumstances justified reconsideration. The fact that plaintiff had been permitted to break procedural rules in other cases was irrelevant, and characterizing the dismissal as a 'manifest injustice' based on application of procedural requirements did not overcome the requirement that extraordinary circumstances be shown. The dismissal was proper because it resulted from plaintiff's own failure to comply with filing procedures.
“Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary measure that should be applied sparingly.”
Establishes the high threshold for motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Andrew Sheets filed a complaint as a pro se litigant against William Gorman and the City of Punta Gorda without paying the required filing f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E) Motion For Reconsideration cases and more on FLexlaw
The Court dismissed pro se Plaintiff Andrew Sheets' complaint without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or move to proceed without prepayment of costs. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider its dismissal and reinstate his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. 5).
Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary measure that should be applied sparingly. Adams v. Beoneman, 335 F.R.D. 452, 454 (M.D. Fla. 2020). Court orders are not intended as first drafts subject to revisions at a litigant's pleasure, so a movant must establish extraordinary circumstances supporting reconsideration. Gold Cross EMS, Inc. v. Children's Hosp. of Ala., 108 F. Supp. 3d 1376, 1384 (S.D. Ga. 2015). “A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely readdress issues previously litigated."
PaineWebber Income Props. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
Plaintiff presents no extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. He claims the dismissal is premature and procedurally inconsistent because in other cases, he consistently waits to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis until “docket initiation and judicial assignment." That he has been permitted to break the rules in other cases is of no consequence. Further, he describes the dismissal as a “manifest injustice" because the Court applied “procedural technicalities.” But at the end of the day, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's case for failure to pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis—a problem of Plaintiff's own making. And in its prior Order, the Court advised Plaintiff that if he wants to proceed with his claims, he may file another complaint under a separate case number.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 5) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 14, 2025.
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- PaineWebber Income Props. Three Ltd. P'ship Ex Rel. Third Income Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514 (M.D. Fla. 1995)
- Sheets v. City of Punta Gorda (M.D. Fla. 2026)