Malone v. City of Peoria et al
Filing
29
ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 8/18/2014 denying 27 Motion for Reconsideration. (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER & OPINION) (JRK, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 18 August, 2014 01:22:03 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
WILLIAM A. MALONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PEORIA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 12-cv-1257
ORDER & OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.
27). Defendant Timothy Moore has filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 28). As
explained below, this Motion is denied.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 30, 2012, bringing multiple claims
against numerous Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging these
Defendants violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1). After the merit review of
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 13), the Court concluded the only claim that
properly remained in the case was Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force
claim against Defendant Timothy Moore, based specifically on conduct during
Plaintiff’s arrest. (Doc. 12 at 2, 3). All other Defendants were dismissed.
Subsequently, Defendant Moore filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Plaintiff’s claim
was untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. (Doc. 19). This motion was
granted, and Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to file an amended pleading if he
had grounds for equitable tolling. (Doc. 24 at 6). Despite multiple warnings of the
consequences, Plaintiff failed to file an amended pleading, and his case was
dismissed. (Text Order, June 17, 2014). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc.
26). On July 29, 2014, more than twenty-eight days later, Plaintiff filed the present
Motion, which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration rather than a
notice of appeal because in the prayer for relief Plaintiff asks that “This Court will
reverse its decision to dismiss this case and set this matter for pre-trial proceedings
and additional adjudications,” and the motion reflects that Plaintiff considers his
filing to be a response to the order to dismiss, intentionally before the same court.
(Doc. 27 at 1, 3).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), “[a] motion to alter or amend a
judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e). As Plaintiff’s Motion was filed more than twenty-eight days after
judgment was entered, his Motion for Reconsideration must be considered under the
more stringent standard of Rule 60(b). Under Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief
from a final judgment or order for any one of the listed reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). The Court does not find any of the specific grounds in 60(b)(1)–(5) to apply,
and so analyzes Petitioner’s Motion as seeking redress under the catch-all provision,
for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). A movant seeking
relief under that provision must show “extraordinary circumstances.” Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005); see also McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d
319, 327 (7th Cir. 2000) (“Rule 60(b) relief is an extraordinary remedy and is
granted only in exceptional circumstances.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Plaintiff, in his Motion, has not set forth any grounds that would justify relief
from the judgment. He does not explain why he failed to file an amended pleading
2
after he was given the opportunity to do so, including two extensions of time. He
also does not point to any grounds for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations,
or any reason the Court dismissed his case improperly. There is no basis to provide
relief from the judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration (Doc. 27) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Entered this 18th day of August, 2014.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?