[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 12, 2008
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 07-13745
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-60558-CV-WPD
CARLOS SHAARBAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE,
CITY OF DAVIE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
JUDGE PETER M. WEINSTEIN,
JUDGE MICHAEL GATES, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 12, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Shaarbay, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his
requests for reconsideration regarding the district court’s previous order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil complaint as frivolous.
We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider a
final judgment. Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 128
S. Ct. 660 (2007). “A post-judgment motion may be treated as made pursuant to
either [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 59 or 60–regardless of how the motion is
styled by the movant–depending on the type of relief sought.” Mays v. U.S. Postal
Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997). “Rule 59 applies to motions for
reconsideration of matters encompassed in a decision on the merits of a dispute.”
Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc., 891 F.2d 886, 889 (11th Cir. 1990). However,
Rule 59(e) 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. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). By
way of contrast, “the purpose of a Rule 60(b) motion is to permit the trial judge to
reconsider matters so that he can correct obvious errors or injustices and so perhaps
obviate the laborious process of appeal.” Carter By and Through Carter v. U.S.,
780 F.2d 925, 928 (11th Cir. 1986) (quotations and alterations omitted).
2
Shaarbay’s various post-judgment pleadings essentially constituted a request
for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing his complaint under Rule 59(e).
However, Shaarbay merely restated his challenges to his underlying conviction
that the district court had already rejected. As a result, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying his requests for reconsideration, because a party
cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion “to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” See Michael
Linet, Inc., 408 F.3d at 763.
AFFIRMED.
3