Mounson v. Walker et al

Filing 195

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying 183 MOTION requesting that Judges of the district stop playing their childish preschool games by misapplying to evidence or Equitable Estoppel doctrine filed by Henry Mounson, Denying 188 MOTION to show that Plaintiff 's claims has merit and the Southern district court did indeed abused its discretion by not accepting my supplemental pleadings motions and to farther amend my complaint, adding/suing new parties. filed by Henry Mounson, Denying 189 MOTION con forming to motion for relief from judgment filed by Henry Mounson, Denying 191 MOTION to show defendants exploited the exhaustion requirement filed by Henry Mounson, Denying 185 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Henry Mounson, denying 194 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Henry Mounson, and Dismissing 186 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by Henry Mounson. The Court WARNS Mounson re post-judgment filings. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/20/12. (bkl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
HENRY MOUNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 08-cv-760-JPG-PMF

ROBERT E. WALKER, JR. et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on a variety of motions filed by plaintiff Henry
Mounson:
•

Motion requesting that judges of the district stop playing their childish preschool games
by misapplying to evidence or equitable estoppel doctrine (Doc. 183);

•

Motion for reconsideration of appointment of counsel (Docs. 185 & 194);

•

Motion for extension of time to file petition for leave to appeal court decision of
November 22, 2011 (Doc. 186);

•

Motion to show that plaintiff’s claims has merit and the Southern District Court did
indeed abused its discretion by not accepting my supplemental pleadings motions and to
farther amend my complaint, adding/suing new parties (Doc. 188);

•

Motion conforming to motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 189); and

•

Motion to show defendants exploited the exhaustion requirement (Doc. 191);
The Court dismissed this case on February 15, 2011, for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Mounson appealed, and the Court of Appeals
affirmed this Court’s judgment on November 22, 2011. Mounson did not seek a writ of
certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. This case is over. Nevertheless, Mounson
continues to bombard the Court with motions. The Court disposes of the motions as follows:

Documents 183, 188, 189 and 191
These motions assert that the Court erred in its disposition of this case. The Court
construes the motions as motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b). It is well settled that Rule 60(b) relief is an extraordinary remedy and is
granted only in exceptional circumstances. McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 327
(7th Cir. 2000) (citing Dickerson v. Board of Educ., 32 F.3d 1114, 1116 (7th Cir. 1994)). Rule
60(b) allows a court “to address mistakes attributable to special circumstances and not merely to
erroneous applications of law.” Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of General Motors Corp., 51 F.3d
746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995). The rule authorizes a Court to grant relief from judgment for the
specific reasons listed in the rule but does not authorize action in response to general pleas for
relief. See Young v. Murphy, 161 F.R.D. 61, 62 (N.D. Ill. 1995). It is also not an appropriate
vehicle for addressing simple legal error, for rehashing old arguments, or for presenting
arguments that should have been raised before the court made its decision. Russell, 51 F.3d at
749; Rutledge v. United States, 230 F.3d 1041, 1052 (7th Cir. 2000); Young, 161 F.R.D. at 62;
In re Oil Spill by “Amoco Cadiz,” 794 F. Supp. 261, 267 (N.D. Ill. 1992), aff’d, 4 F.3d 997 (7th
Cir. 1993) (Table). Mounson has not presented any reason justifying relief under Rule 60(b).
Accordingly, the motions (Docs. 183, 188, 189 & 191) are therefore DENIED.
Documents 185 and 194
These motions request appointment of counsel. This case is over, and Mounson has no
need for counsel to represent him in it. The motions (Docs. 185 & 194) are therefore DENIED.
Document 186
This motion asks for an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing in the Court of
Appeals. This Court has no authority to extend this deadline in the Court of Appeals.
2

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the motion (Doc. 186).
The Court WARNS Mounson that his post-judgment filings are becoming excessive and
that if he continues to file motions that are frivolous, the Court will consider imposing filing
restrictions on him. This case is over, and unless he has a legitimate basis for seeking relief from
judgment under one of the specific categories listed in Rule 60(b), he should stop filing motions
in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 20, 2012
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

3