Jordan v. Provena St. Joseph Medical Center et al
Filing
9
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 7/3/2012:For the reasons set forth above the Court denies Jordans Motion for Relief from Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is denied. Nevertheless, Jordan is not precluded from filing an amended Complaint properly alleging a cause of action. The Amended Complaint must be filed by July 31, 2012. Failure to file the Amended Complaint by that date may result in dismissal of the case or want of prosecution. Entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 7/3/2012.Mailed notice(tsa, )
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
Virginia M. Kendall
CASE NUMBER
12 C 2284
CASE
TITLE
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
DATE
7/3/2012
Jordan vs. Provena
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
For the reasons set forth above the Court denies Jordan’s Motion for Relief from Judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is denied. Nevertheless, Jordan is not precluded from
filing an amended Complaint properly alleging a cause of action. The Amended Complaint must
be filed by July 31, 2012. Failure to file the Amended Complaint by that date may result in
dismissal of the case or want of prosecution.
O[ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
STATEMENT
Melza E. Jordan Sr. moves ex parte for relief from this Court’s judgment of May 17, 2012 under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Jordan has incorrectly moved for relief under Rule 60(b),
but because his claims were dismissed by this Court without prejudice he may amend his
Complaint if he is willing to pay the mandated filing fees.
On March 28, 2012, Jordan filed a pro se Complaint against the Provena St. Joseph Medical
Center; Daniel Knight, in his individual capacity as an employee of Provena; Sarah E. Quigley, in
her individual capacity as an employee of Provena; Timothy R. Hall, in his individual capacity as
an employee of Provena; and Dr. Devassi, in his individual capacity as an employee of Provena.
Jordan’s Complaint claimed violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1985, alleging that Provena and its employees entered into a conspiracy to detain him
against his will in the Psychiatric Ward of Provena. On the same day, Jordan moved to proceed in
forma pauperis without the full prepayment of filing fees. Citing assets disclosed in Jordan’s financial
affidavit, this Court denied his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Further, this Court dismissed
Jordan’s Complaint for failure to state a claim on the grounds that Jordan’s allegations against
private individuals and institutions did not allege the necessary state action to support a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
Jordan now moves for relief from this Court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(6) and seeks leave to pay the necessary filing fees and to amend his Complaint to “cure the
minor pleading defects” identified by this Court. Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12C2284 Jordan vs. Provena
Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT
prescribes the procedure to be followed to obtain relief from a final judgment. Under Rule 60(b)(6),
the catchall provision of Rule 60, this Court may reopen a final judgment for “any other reason that
justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Relief under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy and is
only granted in very limited and exceptional circumstances. See Bakery Machinery & Fabrication, Inc.
v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Reinsurance Company of America,
Inc. v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat, 902 F.2d 1275, 1277 (7th Cir. 1990)). To obtain relief from a
final judgment under Rule 60(b) the movant must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances
justifying the reopening of a final judgment. See Arrieta v. Battaglia, 461 F.3d 861, 865 (7th Cir. 2006).
The decision to grant a Rule 60(b) motion lies in the sound discretion of the district court, and its
judgment will only be disturbed if it abuses that discretion. See Martinez v. City of Chicago, 499 F.3d
721, 727 (7th Cir. 2007).
Here, however, Jordan need not seek relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The Court’s Order of May 17,
2012 did not dismiss Jordan’s claims with prejudice. See Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d
773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992)) (a dismissal under the in
forma pauperis statute is not a dismissal on the merits, but rather just an exercise of the court’s
discretion under the statute; therefore the dismissal of a complaint of a plaintiff moving to proceed
in forma pauperis does not foreclose the filing of a paid complaint making the same allegations). A
dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment. See Dubicz v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 377 F.3d
787, 790 (7th Cir. 2004). In order to file a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment there must
first be a final judgment entered from which relief can be granted. See Martinez, 499 F.3d at 725
(“The key is whether the [Rule 60] motion followed a final judgment, not how the finality of the
judgment is demonstrated.”). Therefore, there must be an entry of a final judgment from which the
petitioner can seek relief before a plaintiff can seek leave to amend a complaint after a judgment
has been vacated under Rule 60(b). See Dubicz, 377 F.3d at 790. Here, because Jordan’s Complaint
was dismissed without prejudice there is no final judgement to seek relief from pursuant to Rule
60(b). See, e.g., Furnace v. Board of Trustees of Souther Illinois University, 218 F.3d 666, 669 n.2 (7th Cir.
2000) (a district court’s dismissal of a complaint without prejudice under the in formal pauperis
statute is not a conclusive final judgment because it leaves the plaintiff with the opportunity to
amend the complaint). Thus, Jordan is free to amend his Complaint if he is able to state a viable
cause of action. Because the Court previously determined that Jordan is not so impoverished that
he is unable to pay the mandated filing fees, if Jordan wishes to amend his Complaint he must pay
those fees before he may proceed in this Court.
For the reasons set forth above the Court denies Jordan’s Motion for Relief from Judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is denied. Nevertheless, Jordan is not precluded from filing
an amended Complaint properly alleging a cause of action. The Amended Complaint must be filed
by July 31, 2012. Failure to file the Amended Complaint by that date may result in dismissal of the
case or want of prosecution.
12C2284 Jordan vs. Provena
Page 2 of 2
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?