Order | Filed: September 08, 2026
| Entered: September 08, 2026
Levy v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Miami Branch
Civil Rights: Other | Florida Southern
Order on Motion to Reopen Case Order on Motion to Vacate
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case (the "Motion"), ECF No. 51 . On May 19, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. ECF No. 48 . On the same day, the Court entered an order dismissing the case. ECF No. 49 . In the Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate its dismissal Order on the basis that his attorney forced him to agree to dismissal of this action. ECF No. 51 .
Although Plaintiff did not cite Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in view of his pro se status, the Court liberally construes his motion as brought pursuant to Rule 60(b). Under Rule 60(b), "courts may relieve a party from a judgment or order on several grounds, including (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment is no longer in effect; and (6) 'any other reason that justifies relief.'" Marques v. JP Morgan Chase, M.A., 805 F. App'x 668, 671 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) "is an extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances." Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984)(recognizing the importance of the sanctity of final judgments); see also Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 741 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2014) (recognizing Rule 60(b)(6) does not allow a party to avoid the consequences of their own free and deliberate choices). As stated above, Plaintiff's basis for reopening the case is his claim that his attorney fraudulently forced him to agree to dismissal of his case. ECF No. 51 . However, Plaintiff has not provided any communication with his attorney, any supporting facts explaining what his attorney allegedly said or did, or any details as to how he was forced to accept the dismissal. Even if Plaintiff had provided evidence, attorney misconduct alone does not justify relief under Rule 60. See e.g., In re Bloomer, 552 B.R. 897, 902 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2016).
Therefore, because Plaintiff has not provided adequate support for his claim that, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. 51 , is DENIED .
Additionally, given that Plaintiff's Dismissal Appeal to Reopen Case the "Appeal"), ECF No. 50 , raises the same claims as the instant Motion, that Appeal is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Becerra (drn)