Clayman v. Bessant, No. 25-80890-CIV-MATTHEWMAN (2025)

Case details
Full caption
David Morris Clayman v. Scott Bessant
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2025
Disposition
Motion Denied
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.DAVID MORRIS CLAYMAN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT BESSANT, in hisOfficial Capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Defendants.United States District Court, S.D. Florida. | November 24, 2025 | Slip Copy | 2025 WL 3274291Document Detailsstandard Citation:DAVID MORRIS CLAYMAN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT BESSANT, inhis Off. Capacity as Sec'y of the Treasury, et al., Defendants., No.25-80890-CIV, 2025 WL 3274291 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2025)All Citations:Slip Copy, 2025 WL 3274291Search DetailsSearch Query:adv: (openai "artificial intelligence" chatgpt "google gemini" "westlawcocounsel" "large language model") (hallucinat! fake fictitious spuriousnonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined /p (gpt ai "artificialintelligence" chatgpt chaton perplexity openai copilot "google gemini""google bard" grok "mata v. avianca" claude llm llms)) (hallucinat! fakefictitious spurious nonexistent "non-existent" "made up" imagined) +3(precedent case "legal authority" "legal case") & DATE(aft 1/1/2023)Jurisdiction:FloridaDelivery DetailsDate:November 27, 2025 at 12:24 PMDelivered By: Client ID:NOCLIENTIDOutlineORDER ONPLAINTIFF'S 59(e)MOTION TO ALTEROR AMEND ORDERDENYING RETURNOF SACRED NAMESOF G-D [DE 62](p.1)All Citations (p.2)
DAVID MORRIS CLAYMAN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT BESSANT, in his..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 3274291Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, S.D. Florida.DAVID MORRIS CLAYMAN, Plaintiff,v.SCOTT BESSANT, in his OfficialCapacity as Secretary of theTreasury, et al., Defendants.Case No. 25-80890-CIV-MATTHEWMAN|Entered on FLSD Docket 11/24/2025Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion ofcitation references that are incorrect or do not actuallyexist. These invalid citations appeared in the originalcourt opinion and have been preserved as written sincethey are part of the official record. Any links to theseinvalid citations have been removed.ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S 59(e) MOTIONTO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER DENYINGRETURN OF SACRED NAMES OF G-D [DE 62]WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN Chief United StatesMagistrate Judge*1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon PlaintiffDavid Morris Clayman's (“Plaintiff”) 59(e) Motionto Alter or Amend Order Denying Return of SacredNames of G-d (“Motion”) [DE 62]. The Motion is fullybriefed. See DEs 67, 69.The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion,Response, and Reply, as well as the entire docket inthis case and the relevant case law. Plaintiff is movingfor the Court to alter or amend its Order on Plaintiff'sMotion to Protected the Sacred Names of G-d in CourtFilings and Records [DE 49].As an initial matter, the Court notes that the only caserelied on by Plaintiff in the Motion for the propositionthat “Courts routinely release religious items after trialto their owners” is “United States v. Bovio, 708 F. Supp.2d 579 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).” This is an AI-generatedhallucination and not an actual case. Plaintiff concedesthis fact and apologizes in his Reply.Plaintiff's Motion solely relies on Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 59(e) as the basis for the relief sought.This rule states that “[a] motion to alter or amend ajudgment must be filed no later than 28 days afterthe entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).No judgment has been entered in this case, so Rule59(e) is inapplicable. Williams v. Warden, GDCP,No. 22-10249, 2024 WL 4439968, at *13 (11th Cir.Oct. 8, 2024) (“Rule 59(e) motions are motions toalter or amend a judgment, not any nonfinal order.”);Reed v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., No. 19-24668-CIV, 2021 WL 2592888, at *6 (S.D. Fla. May 3,2021) (“However, motions for reconsideration of aninterlocutory order are ‘not properly considered underRule 59(e) but, instead, as simply a request for thedistrict court to revisit its earlier ruling.’ 12B FederalPractice and Procedure, Civil Rules, Quick ReferenceGuide, at 1066 (2019 ed.)”). Therefore, since Rule59(e) is wholly inapplicable here, Plaintiff's Motion isdenied on that ground.However, even if Rule 59(e) did apply (which it doesnot), “[t]he only grounds for granting [a Rule 59(e)]motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifesterrors of law or fact.” In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116,1119 (11th Cir. 1999). “The United States SupremeCourt and the Court of Appeals for the EleventhCircuit have made it clear that Rule 59(e) ‘may notbe used to relitigate old matters, or to raise argumentsor present evidence that could have been raised priorto the entry of judgment.’ ” Powell v. Bermudez, No.20-CV-20391, 2020 WL 3183316, at *1 (S.D. Fla.June 15, 2020) (quoting Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker,554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008)); see also Stansell v.Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, 771 F.3d713, 746 (11th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff has not met the highstandard under the rule of showing that there is newly-discovered evidence or that the Court's Order containsmanifest errors of law or fact. He is trying to relitigateold matters and to expand upon arguments that couldhave been raised earlier.In an abundance of caution, the Court will also analyzethe Motion as a motion for reconsideration pursuantFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which is the
DAVID MORRIS CLAYMAN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT BESSANT, in his..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2rule the Plaintiff should have traveled under in the firstplace but failed to even cite. The “purpose of a motionfor reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of lawor fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Z.K.Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F.Supp. 1561, 1563(S.D. Fla. 1992). Thus, federal courts have delineatedthree major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1)an intervening change in controlling law; (2) theavailability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correctclear error or prevent manifest injustice. Degirmenciv. Sapphire-Fort Lauderdale, LLLP, 693 F. Supp. 2d1325, 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (citing Offices TogolaisDes Phosphates v. Mulberry Phosphates, Inc., 62 F.Supp. 2d 1316, 1331 (M.D. Fla. 1999)).*2 In Plaintiff's Motion, he claims that “amendment isnecessary to correct a misunderstanding that Plaintiff'srequest constituted religious endorsement rather than aneutral accommodation under the Religious FreedomRestoration Act ... and to prevent manifest injustice byavoiding government-mandated desecration of sacredtext.” [DE 62 at 2]. There is no such misunderstandingin the Court's Order. It should also be noted thatPlaintiff did not even explicitly raise the RFRA issuein the motion [DE 40] upon which the Order wasbased. He mentioned the RFRA for the first timein his reply in support of that motion, which isimproper. Further, to the extent Plaintiff is now relyingon the RFRA as a basis for the relief sought, theCourt rejects Plaintiff's argument that “[d]estructionof sacred filings” is imposing a substantial burdenon Plaintiff's religious exercise or that the Court isfailing to impose the least restrictive means to servea compelling interest. Additionally, Plaintiff's claimthat the relief requested is both narrowly tailored andneutral simply is inaccurate.Plaintiff has not met his burden under Rule 60(b).More specifically, Plaintiff has failed to demonstratethat there has been an intervening change in controllinglaw, that new evidence is available, or that it needs tocorrect clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Rather,Plaintiff is simply attempting to re-litigate an issue thathas already been decided. Thus, had Plaintiff filed amotion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), it wouldbe without merit and denied.Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED andADJUDGED as follows:1. Plaintiff's Motion [DE 62] is DENIED.2. Plaintiff is permitted to use AI to aid him indrafting his motions; however, he is responsiblefor properly overseeing the AI to ensure thathe is not including hallucinated cases or lawin his Court filings. If Plaintiff continues toimproperly utilize artificial intelligence, the Courtwill consider restricting his filing in this caseand imposing sanctions against him. Even prose plaintiffs are required to ensure that the casecitations and other legal or factual references intheir papers are accurate and correct. As the Courthas previously warned Plaintiff about his use ofAI [DE 45 at 2], Plaintiff should consider this hisfinal warning.DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West PalmBeach in the Southern District of Florida, this 21st dayof November 2025.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 3274291End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access