EUSEBIO
v.
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - LOW
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.
Juan Domingo Eusebio, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 but failed to pay the required filing fee or request in forma pauperis status within the specified deadline. The district court dismissed the case and denied his motion for reconsideration, holding that pro se status and imprisonment do not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration of the dismissal.
Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy requiring exceptional circumstances. Pro se status, imprisonment, and lack of understanding of the law do not, by themselves, constitute exceptional circumstances justifying reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration is denied.
[1] A court's reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.
[2] A pro se prisoner litigant's status, imprisonment, and lack of understanding of the law do not alone justify reconsideration of a prior order.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A court's reconsideration of a prior order is an "extraordinary remedy" that should be used "sparingly."”
Establishes the high threshold for obtaining reconsideration of a prior court order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEusebio filed a habeas corpus petition on December 2, 2024, and was ordered that same day to pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis w…
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 Extraordinary Remedy cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Juan Domingo Eusebio, a prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this case by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on December 2, 2024. (Dkt. 1.) That same day, the court ordered Petitioner to pay the required filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days from the commencement of the case. (Dkt. 2 at 2.) Given Petitioner's failure to pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis, the court dismissed this case on January 8, 2025. (Dkt. 3 at 1.) Petitioner moves for reconsideration. (Dkt. 5 at 1–2.) He claims that he initiated the payment of his filing fee sometime in December after receiving the December 2, 2024 order and again on January 14, 2025, after receiving the order dismissing the case. (See id.) Currently, Petitioner's filing fee has not been received by the Clerk of the Court.
A court's reconsideration of a prior order is an “extraordinary remedy" that should be used "sparingly." Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport
Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072 (M.D. Fla. 1993); accord Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F. 2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984) (describing reconsideration as “an extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances"). Although, as Petitioner asserts, he is a pro se prisoner litigant "unskilled in the law," (see Dkt. 5 at 1), the instant circumstances do not justify reconsideration. See Talbert v. Pennsylvania, 667 F. App’x 778, 780 (3d Cir. 2016) (affirming the denial of a motion for reconsideration when the movant "sought reconsideration based on his pro se status, his imprisonment, and his lack of understanding of the law"). Petitioner may pursue his claim by filing a new petition under a new case number. If he has difficulty timely providing the filing fee, he can request an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on January 30, 2025.
Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Airport Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072 (M.D. Fla. 1993)