ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff David Hastings' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 41). By way of an Order (Doc. 39), the Court granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 36; 37) and dismissed Hastings' Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 28). Now, Hastings moves for reconsideration of that Order, stating that he never received Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. 41).

"A motion for reconsideration must demonstrate why the court should reconsider its past decision and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Fla. Coll. of Osteopathic Med., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 12 F.Supp.2d 1306, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Further, in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources, reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly." Stalley v. ADS All. Data Sys., Inc., 296 F.R.D. 670, 687 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). There are three grounds for reconsideration of a prior order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e): "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice." Church of Our Savior v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 108 F.Supp.3d 1259, 1265 (M.D. Fla. 2015) (citation omitted).

Hastings' Motion is based solely on the ground that he did not receive copies of the Motions to Dismiss. His address has not changed. (Doc. 41 at 2). There is no indication he failed to receive any other documents. And the Motions to Dismiss each contained certificates of service, certifying that Defendants mailed copies to Hastings. (Docs. 36 at 6; 37 at 7). Moreover, the Court did not dismiss the Third Amended Complaint due to Hastings' failure to respond. Instead, the Order considered the merits and followed well-established law that Hastings cannot state a claim until he obtains postconviction relief. (Doc. 39 at 2-5). For that reason, the Court is skeptical any basis exists to reconsider its Order, despite any potential service issues. At least one other court rejected a pro se plaintiff's reconsideration motion under similar circumstances. Echeverry v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 16-cv-61635-GAYLES, 2017 WL 880424, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2017).

In an abundance of caution, however, the Court will allow Hastings to supplement his Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 41) to explain how he stated a claim and why the Court should reconsider its Order (Doc. 39).

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

DONE and ORDERED.