ORDER

WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's latest filing, styled "Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider En Banc" (doc. 17).

On April 15, 2013, plaintiff Ted Thalassinos, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against seven named defendants concerning an Internet auction for a forklift, whose total purchase price was approximately $1,600. The Complaint lacked the short and plain jurisdictional statement required by Rule 8(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. Moreover, scrutiny of the Complaint yielded considerable doubt as to the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. As the law requires, the Court entered an Order (doc. 14) on May 20, 2013, raising these jurisdictional concerns sua sponte, setting forth in detail the legal basis for same, and explaining that plaintiff could not simply "leav[e] the Court to guess as to why he contends this action belongs in federal court." (Doc. 14, at 3.) The May 20 Order issued the following very clear directive to plaintiff:

(Doc. 14, at 4.)

Rather than complying with the May 20 Order, Thalassinos filed a Motion to Set-Aside Judgment/Order (doc. 15) in which he criticized the May 20 Order for not identifying a jurisdictional theory that had been omitted from the Complaint, suggested that the May 20 Order created "the appearance of a conflict of interest," and indicated his belief that the May 20 Order amounted to "an abuse of discretion and violation of plaintiff's right to due process." (Doc. 15, at 2-3.) Notwithstanding these frivolous objections and plaintiff's noncompliance with the clear instructions in the May 20 Order, the Court did not dismiss this action at that time. Instead, and in deference to plaintiff's pro se status, the undersigned gave Thalassinos another chance. In an Order (doc. 16) entered on June 5, 2013, the Court explained to plaintiff that his various objections to the May 20 Order were meritless and emphasized the critical importance that plaintiff make the legally mandated showing of subject matter jurisdiction via appropriate pleading. The June 5 Order explained in clear terms what Thalassinos must do, as follows:

(Doc. 16, at 3.)

Now, June 17 has come and gone. Plaintiff has never filed the requisite Amended Complaint. Instead, he continues to resist the Court's lawful and proper orders, wasting time and squandering scarce judicial resources by filing frivolous objections and requests for reconsideration. This time, plaintiff's noncompliance takes the form of a document styled "Motion to Reconsider En Banc" (doc. 17). This purported "Motion to Reconsider" does not identify any error or oversight in the portions of the May 20 Order addressing subject matter jurisdiction, nor does it offer any explanation at all for plaintiff's failure to comply with the unambiguous directive that he file an Amended Complaint setting forth appropriate jurisdictional allegations and supporting facts. Plaintiff simply has not complied.1 A Motion to Reconsider is not appropriately filed merely because a litigant does not agree with (or does not wish to abide by) the court's ruling. See, e.g., Lee v. Thomas, 2012 WL 3137901, *2 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 1, 2012) ("Nor are motions to reconsider properly filed as a kneejerk reaction by a dissatisfied federal court loser."); Hughes v. Stryker Sales Corp., 2010 WL 2608957, *3 (S.D. Ala. June 28, 2010) (rejecting notion that motions to reconsider "are appropriate whenever the losing party thinks the District Court `got it wrong,'" but finding that they are instead "an extraordinary remedy" that must be "employed sparingly") (citations omitted). For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider is denied.

Where does that leave us? Some two and a half months into the lifespan of this litigation, Thalassinos still has not submitted a pleading containing the short and plain jurisdictional statement required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He has pleaded no facts supporting the existence of whatever undisclosed jurisdictional theory he might be championing. The Court has afforded him multiple opportunities to correct these jurisdictional pleading errors (and given him specific instructions concerning what must be done), but plaintiff has declined. The net result is that plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of demonstrating the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2010) ("The party commencing suit in federal court ... has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts supporting the existence of federal jurisdiction."). Plaintiff's pro se status does not relieve him of the obligations to meet this jurisdictional burden, to plead in a manner that satisfies Rule 8(a)(1), or to comply with repeated specific directives of this Court. See, e.g., Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) ("once a pro se ... litigant is in court, he is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," and may be sanctioned "for failure to comply with court orders"); Local Rule 83.9(b) ("All litigants proceeding pro se shall be bound by and comply with all local rules of this Court, and the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure....").

The Court's determination that plaintiff has failed to make an adequate showing of federal subject matter jurisdiction compels the dismissal of this action. See generally Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d at 1092 ("[O]nce a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.") (citation omitted); Guevera v. Republic of Peru, 468 F.3d 1289, 1305 (11th Cir. 2006) ("If the court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction, the court's sole remaining act is to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, dismissal of this action for want of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate at this time.2

For all of the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. A separate judgment will enter.

DONE and ORDERED.