KONDAPALLI
v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES
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.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because it failed to present new evidence or identify manifest errors of law or fact.
The pro se plaintiff filed a response to a court order, which the court construed as a motion for reconsideration. The plaintiff's response did not ad…
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 Manifest Error Of Law Or Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Kiran Kumar Reddy Kondapalli’s Response to Court’s Order Issued in Docket 11 (Doc. 12), which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration. Kondapalli has not presented any “newly-discovered evidence” nor identified any “manifest errors of law or fact” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), Arthur v. King, 500 F. 3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted), nor has Kondapalli shown that any of the scenarios in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) apply here. Further, Kondapalli’s response does not address any of the deficiencies noted by the Court in its September 6, 2022 Order. (Docs. 11 at 2–3; 12). The complaint is still a shotgun complaint and the facts—both those alleged in the complaint and the additional facts raised in the response—do not relate to the claims alleged. See (Docs. 1, 11, 12). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12) is DENIED.! DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida the 21st day of September, 2022.
Cimotheg Corrig on (Ny) TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN <=es" —*United States District Judge ckm Copies: Pro se Plaintiff (by mail and email) Kiran Kumar Reddy Kondapalli 55 Starnberg Ct. St. Augustine, FL 32095 [email protected]
REQUESTS TO APPEAL THE DENIED INJUNCTION AND WOULD LIKE
TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER TO OBTAIN INJUNCTION.” (Doc. 12 at 1). If Kondapalli would like to appeal this Order or the Court’s September 6, 2022 Order, Kondapalli should file a separate Notice of Appeal.