Page 1 of 3

Motion for Reconsideration and Setting Aside of Order Dismissing Complaint and

Denying Preliminary Temporary Injunction” (doc. 43); the Government’s

response in opposition (doc. 46); and the “Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary

Injunction to Stay His Execution Scheduled for September 20, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.”

(att. 1 to doc. 44), all filed September 6, 2006. For the reasons set forth below,

the Court finds the motion should be denied.

Hill does not specify whether his motion for reconsideration is brought

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. The major distinction

between the two is that Rule 59 “applies to motions for reconsideration of matters

encompassed in a decision on the merits of the dispute, and not matters

collateral to the merits.” Lucas v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 729 F.2d 1300, 1301

Case 4:06-cv-00032-SPM Document 47 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3

brought his § 1983 action until his death warrant was signed, because it was only then that he

could determine the specific means by which the State would carry out his execution. This point

necessarily assumes that the State arbitrarily and capriciously (or secretly) changes its chemical

cocktail on a regular basis. Even assuming that Hill was not previously aware of Florida’s

procedures for lethal injection, the 1999 Sims case detailed the procedure from beginning to end,

thus providing Hill with the information necessary to bring his case at that time. His decision to

wait until four days before his execution to file his motion does not entitle him either to a stay or to

a reconsideration of this Court’s previous rulings.

(11th Cir. 1984). Because Hill argues that this Court has “misapprehended and

mistaken several issues of law and fact” (doc. 43-1 at 2), he is attacking “matters

encompassed in a decision on the merits of the dispute”; thus, his motion for

reconsideration will be treated as one arising under Rule 59(e).

“The only grounds for granting a [Rule 59(e)] motion are newly-discovered

(11th Cir. 1999). This rule “may not be used to relitigate a claim.” Fry v.

Hillsborough County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 2034967 at *7 (11th Cir. Jul. 20,

Hill’s emotionally-laden arguments raise no new evidence, instead making

complaints under headings such as the following: “Truncated Consideration by

Hill insinuates that this Court’s timeliness in rendering an order indicates

insufficient deliberation on the issues presented. However, Hill filed his original

motion for preliminary injunction in January of 2006. This Court has kept current

since that time (and before) with opinions issued by our nation’s courts on the

question of Eighth Amendment concerns in the context of lethal injection. The

Court has thoroughly examined relevant opinions, both state and federal, and

Case 4:06-cv-00032-SPM Document 47 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3

applied them in a consistent manner to the facts presented in this case. All

parties should rest assured that this Court has given careful and searching

consideration to these weighty matters in rendering its decisions.

Hill has simply not made any showing of manifest error of law or fact in the

Court’s order; rather, it appears that Hill is engaging in dilatory tactics to delay a

death sentence that was imposed for a second time in 1986—two decades ago.

As the United States Supreme Court stated in Hill v. McDonough, “The federal

courts can and should protect States from dilatory or speculative suits.” Hill, 126

S.Ct. at 2104. Based on the foregoing, it is

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00032-SPM Document 47 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 3 of 3