Phillips v. Hodge et al

Filing 102

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, denying 100 MOTION for Reconsideration re 97 Memorandum & Order.Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 11/14/2013. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JESSE C. PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 13-cv-69-JPG-PMF

PHILIP B. MARTIN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Jesse C. Phillips’ Rule 60(b) motion to
reconsider this Court’s order dated October 25, 2013, wherein this Court denied Phillips’ motion
for partial summary judgment (Doc. 100). Defendant Philip B. Martin has filed his response
(Doc. 101). For the following reasons, the Court denies Phillips’ motion.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court may reconsider an order for
the following reasons: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence . . .; [and] (3) fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party.” 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 an order 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).
Here, Phillips asserts that the Court misread his motion for partial summary judgment and
proceeds to rehash the same arguments set forth in his original motion for partial summary
judgment. After a review of the motion, the Court concludes it did not misread Phillips’ motion,
and Phillips fails to set forth a reason sufficient to justify relief under Rule 60(b). Accordingly,
this Court DENIES Phillips’ motion to reconsider (Doc. 100).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 14, 2013
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2