[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12821

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cv-00164-JSM-PRL

CLAYTON ALBERS, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN – USP I,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(March 14, 2014)

Before PRYOR, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-12821 Date Filed: 03/14/2014 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Clayton Albers, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of 

his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s dismissal, without prejudice,

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In Albers’ § 2241 

petition, he stated that he was indigent and requested the waiver of all fees with the 

petition, and all other considerations afforded to pro se petitioners. He requested 

his letter be accepted in lieu of a standard § 2241 form. After over 30 days had 

passed since Albers’ filing, the district court dismissed his petition without 

prejudice on the basis that he failed to pay the filing fee or request to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) within 30 days of the filing of his petition, as required by the 

court’s local rule. Albers filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 

petition, claiming his statement of indigency in his petition should have been 

accepted in lieu of a formal application to proceed IFP. The district court denied 

the motion for reconsideration. 

Albers contends the certification he was indigent in his original § 2241 

petition sufficiently constituted a request to proceed IFP. He asserts he was never 

sent any forms, as required by the local rules. Thus, he contends his petition was 

erroneously dismissed.

Rule 60(b) allows a party to move a court for relief from a final judgment 

due to, in relevant part, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, or 

any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (b)(6). Generally, 

Case: 13-12821 Date Filed: 03/14/2014 Page: 2 of 4 
3

in reviewing an appeal of an order denying a motion for reconsideration, we may 

only consider the denial of relief of the motion for reconsideration, not the 

underlying judgment itself. Rice v. Ford Motor Co., 88 F.3d 914, 918-19 (11th 

Cir. 1996).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Albers’ motion for 

reconsideration. See Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003)

(stating we review a district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for 

abuse of discretion). The record shows Albers had neither paid the required filing 

fee nor filed an application to proceed IFP with the district court within 30 days of 

filing his petition, in violation of the court’s local rules. M.D. Fla. Local Rule

1.03(e) (stating a prisoner case “will be subject to dismissal by the Court, sua 

sponte, if the filing fee is not paid or if the application [to proceed IFP] is not filed 

within 30 days of the commencement of the action”). Albers has not identified any 

error under Rule 60(b) that justified relief such that the district court was required 

to vacate its initial order. See Solaroll Shade & Shutter Corp., Inc. v. Bio-Energy 

Sys., Inc., 803 F.2d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir. 1986) (“To demonstrate an abuse of 

discretion” in denying a Rule 60(b) motion, a movant “must prove some 

justification for relief . . . [and] cannot prevail simply because the district court 

properly could have vacated its order).” Although Albers argues the court should 

have accepted his statement that he was indigent in lieu of a formal application to 

Case: 13-12821 Date Filed: 03/14/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

proceed IFP, he has not shown how the court’s refusal to do so entitled to him 

relief under Rule 60(b). Similarly, there is no authority that supports his 

contention that the court was required to send him the requisite application forms 

when it declined to accept his letter as a substitute for a formal application. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-12821 Date Filed: 03/14/2014 Page: 4 of 4