ORDER
This аction is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (D.E. 126), Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Relief Based on Fraud and Emergency Motion For Preliminаry Injunction (D.E. 130) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Order (D.E. 148). Defendants moved for the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel (D.E. 135). A status conference was hеld before the Court on August 26,1996.
The Court has considered the Motions, responses, the parties’ representations at the conference, and the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the motions are disposed of as follows.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment by Order dated May 24, 1996. The facts are set forth in this Court’s prior order,
Socialist Workers Party, et al. v. Leahy, et al.,
DISCUSSION
On a motion for reconsideration, a party:
must demonstrate why the court should reconsider its prior decision and ‘set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.’ Cover v. Wal-Mart Stores. Inc.,148 F.R.D. 294 (M.D.Fla.1993). A motion fоr reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely address issues litigated previously. Government Personnel Services, Inc. v. Government Personnel Mutual Life Ins. Co.,759 F.Supp. 792 , 793 (M.D.Fla.1991).
PaineWebber Income Properties v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
Plaintiffs moved for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal reрresentative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; ... (6) any other reаson justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 2 Based on the affidavits and other submissions to the Court and counsel’s representations at the cоnference, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to prove fraud or mistake to warrant relief from judgment.
The remaining question is whether the June 20 letter, sent in error and retracted, alters the posture of this case and makes plaintiffs’ alleged fear of enforcement “actual and imminent.” 3 If so, plaintiffs have standing to pursue their constitutional claim and relief from judgment is warranted. Plaintiffs argue that the June 20 letter typifies the very harm they seek to forеstall by the adjudication of the constitutionality of the statute in question: the danger that even if the current administration has no intention of enforcing the statute, a future administration could adopt a different policy and enforce the statute, thus harming plaintiffs, minor political parties that have nоt filed a performance bond.
Plaintiffs have demonstrated no actual harm to them from the existence of the statute. Plaintiffs are registered minоr political parties with the State of Florida. Plaintiffs have not filed a performance bond and have been denied no benefit or privilege that may accompany that filing.
Plaintiffs’ threatened harm is not justicia-ble. The statute has not been enforced in the past. Plaintiffs’ “subjective chill, feаr, is not sufficient. It is the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute, ‘past or immediately threatened,’ that causes the injury entitling those in the line of fire to seek judicial relief.”
American Library Ass’n v. Barr,
Given these facts, there is no basis for relief from judgment. The evidence before this Court remains uncontroverted; there is no evidencе that any “political party has ever been denied ballot access in this state because of said party failing to post a bond as requirеd by Section 103.121, Florida Statutes.” Affidavit of Dorothy W. Joyce, Exh. B to Defendant Smith’s Motion To Dismiss Or Alternatively, Motion For Summary Judgment (D.E. 54);
see
Affidavit of Ethel Baxter, ¶¶ 3-7 (D.E. 99). Defendant Leahy, Cоunty Supervisor of Elections, has never
There is no “substantial threat of irreparable harm” if a preliminary injunction is not issued. The motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.
Defendant State’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with the statutory requirements of Rulе 11. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11;
Elliott v. Tilton,
It is, therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED; Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Relief Based on Fraud is DENIED; that Plaintiffs Emergency Motion For Preliminary Injunction is DENIED; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Order is GRANTED; and Defendant’s Motion for the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel is DENIED.
Notes
. The June 20, 1996 letter (D.E. 128) stated:
A review of our records reflects that a cоpy of the $10,000 bond has not been filed with this office. This bond is required by law pursuant to Section 103.121(3), Florida Statutes. Failure to file a copy of the bond will result in removal of your minor party status with this state. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
. Although the moving papers аssert only fraud or mistake, counsel for plaintiffs asserted subdivision (6) as a basis for this Court's granting relief from judgment at the status conference.
. For a case or controversy to exist, the plaintiffs must show that they have, in fact, been injured by defendants’ challenged conduct.
Sierra Club v. Morton,
.Indеed, the cases relied upon by plaintiff are distinguishable. In
ACLU v. The Florida Bar,