Raymond A. Hanna El v. State of Florida, et al., No. 18-12847 (11th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 18, 2019.
Download PDF
Case: 18-12847 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-12847 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cv-60597-WPD RAYMOND A. HANNA EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STATE OF FLORIDA, BROWARD COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES, CITY OF LAUDERHILL, CARLOS REBELLO, MICHAEL MAUER, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (June 14, 2019) Case: 18-12847 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 2 of 3 Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, BRANCH, and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Raymond Hanna El, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 suit, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a “writ of quo warranto,” which the district court construed as a motion for reconsideration. We review only for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 740 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). As best we can tell, Hanna El contends that the district court should have allowed him to relitigate the subject of his motion for reconsideration. But “[a] motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Hanna El also appeals the denial of his petition for a “writ of error objection.” The district court construed that petition as a motion to recuse and denied it on the merits, but we construe it as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it sought the vacatur of the district court’s prior rulings based on an alleged past need to recuse. We review only for abuse of discretion the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1316 (11th Cir. 2000). Hanna El appears to argue that the district court judge should have recused because the judge’s rulings against Hanna El show that the judge was biased against him. Rulings 2 Case: 18-12847 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 3 of 3 adverse to a party, however, are not enough to show bias that warrants recusal, Hamm v. Members of Bd. of Regents, 708 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1983), and Hanna El has not shown any other grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). In short, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hanna El’s motions. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
