Cote et al v. Hopp et al

Filing 153

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 136 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/24/2011. (cc: Pro Se Cotes) (RK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 24 October, 2011 03:00:59 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EVELYN COTE and ALFRED COTE,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
TOM HOPP, SARAH STUECKER, SCOTT )
COWSER, DAN LEEZER, DON
)
FALKNER,
)
JOHN JEFFERSON, JAMES DROZDZ,
)
BRIAN HUNTER, CITY OF NAUVOO,
)
ILLINOIS, HANCOCK COUNTY
)
SHERIFF’S DEPARMENT, JANE DOE,
)
JOHN DOE, JOHN MCCARTY
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 09-01060

ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Alfred and Evelyn Cote (collectively “Plaintiffs”)
Motion to Clarify and/or Reconsider [#136]. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Reconsider [#136] is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Clarify [#136] is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed their pro se Complaint [#1] on February 17, 2009. Fact discovery closed
on July 15, 2011, and on August 15, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint [#104] and attached a proposed Amended Complaint. On August 22, 2010,
the Court initially granted the Motion [#104] but, upon further review, issued a Text Order that
same day refusing to file the attached proposed Amended Complaint. As explained in that
Order, the Court would not file the proposed Amended Complaint because it contained several
already dismissed parties and claims. Plaintiffs were directed to file a new proposed Amended

Complaint, deleting the names of all previously terminated defendants and the corresponding
claims against them by August 29, 2011.
On August 31, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their revised Amended Complaint [#115] which was
stricken by this Court in its September 14, 2011 Order [#128]. The Court found that to allow
Plaintiff’s revised Amended Complaint would make existing claims more difficult to understand,
confuse the remaining issues, unduly delay the continuation of the case, and would bring in new
claims against new parties [#128 at 7]. Plaintiffs then filed a Motion to Clarify and/or
Reconsider on September 29, 2011 [#136]. This Order follows.
DISCUSSION
Motions for reconsideration can be filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). A litigant who moves for reconsideration under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) must do so within 28 days of the entry of judgment; a litigant who
moves for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) may do so not more than
one year after entry of judgment. (See generally FED. R. CIV. PROC. 59(e) and FED. R. CIV.
PROC. 60(b)). However, to move under either rule, Plaintiffs must do so after final judgment
has been entered. As such, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.
While the Seventh Circuit has stated that it “may hold a pro se litigant’s briefs to a lower
standard than those prepared by counsel” Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176, 178 (7th Cir.
1985), Plaintiff’s motion [#136] is woefully inadequate. Essentially, Plaintiffs claim that they
“have been confused with the orders dated August 21 2011,” that “the order of September 14th
confused [them] even further,” and that if the Court were to deny their new complaint they
“would be denied due process” [#136 at 1] without citing to any substantive part of the record or
any prevailing authority.

The Court has been perfectly clear in its requirement that Plaintiffs comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the Court held that Plaintiffs may not add
previously dismissed parties or claims. See August 22, 2011 Text Order and [#128 at 5-6].
Likewise, the Court clearly explained that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), plaintiffs
may amend their complaint once “as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading
is served;” at any other time “leave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
[#128 at 5]. Despite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2)’s relatively liberal standard, the
Court held that to allow Plaintiffs’ new claims – which fall outside of both state and federal state
of limitations – would “necessitate re-opening discovery” and would cause “undue delay and
prejudice.” [#128 at 7]. Plaintiffs remain free to file another amended complaint but must not
include parties which have already been dismissed or introduce claims which fall outside of their
respective statutes of limitations.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider [#136] is DENIED and
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Clarify [#136] is GRANTED.

Entered this 24th day of October, 2011.

/s/ Michael M. Mihm
Michael M. Mihm
United States District Judge