Lacy v. Rains et al

Filing 63

ORDER-Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 57 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 6/18/2018. (njh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
REGINALD LACY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVID RAINS, et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-1383-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider In Forma Pauperis
Status and Reinstate Case (Doc. 57). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff Reginald Lacy filed a civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and a Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) on December 22, 2016. In his motion, Lacy represented to
the Court that his only anticipated income was $19 per month from his institution job (Doc. 2 at
1). The Court granted Lacy’s IFP motion on January 6, 2017 (Doc. 6).
On April 24, 2018, the Court entered an Order finding Lacy’s allegations of poverty were
untrue, revoking his in forma pauperis status, and granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
52). Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of that Order.
While Plaintiff’s motion is titled a “Motion to Reconsider,” the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure do not actually recognize such a motion. However, motions brought pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) are referred to as motions to reconsider, although
Plaintiff has not cited to either of these Rules in his motion.
Under Rule 59(e), the Court may alter or amend its judgment if the movant “clearly
establish[es] (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly
discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Blue v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 698
Page 1 of 3

F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir.2012) (quoting Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th
Cir.2006)). The rule “enables the court to correct its own errors and thus avoid unnecessary
appellate procedures.” Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir.1996). However, such
motions are not appropriate vehicles for re-litigating arguments that the district court previously
rejected or for arguing issues or presenting evidence that could have been raised during the
pendency of the motion presently under reconsideration. Sigworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d
506, 512 (7th Cir.2007). A proper motion to reconsider does more than take umbrage and restate
the arguments that were initially rejected during the summary judgment phase. County of
McHenry v. Ins. Co. of the West, 438 F.3d 813, 819 (7th Cir. 2006).
Rule 60(b) contains a more exacting standard than Rule 59(e), although it permits relief
from a judgment for a number of reasons including mistake or “any other reason justifying relief
from the operation of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In contrast to Rule 59(e), legal error is
not an appropriate ground for relief under Rule 60(b). Gleash v. Yuswak, 308 F.3d 758, 761 (7th
Cir. 2002) (“A contention that the judge erred with respect to the materials in the record is not
within Rule 60(b)’s scope, else it would be impossible to enforce time limits for appeal.”).
Relief under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy and is only granted in exceptional
circumstances. United States v. 8136 S. Dobson St., Chicago Ill., 125 F.3d 1076, 1082 (7th Cir.
1997).
In support of his motion, Plaintiff merely re-asserts the arguments he previously made
before the Court. He argues that he did not lie in filing his motion to proceed in forma pauperis
because he had not yet received the money from his prior settlement. However, as the Court
noted in its previous Order, Plaintiff affirmatively represented to the Court that the only income
he received in the past twelve months and expected to receive in the future was $19 a month
from his institution job. He failed to disclose the settlement funds as a source of money that he

Page 2 of 3

expected to receive in the future and he had a duty to do so. Thus, Plaintiff has not shown that
the Court made any manifest errors of law or fact in its earlier decision. Because Plaintiff has
not demonstrated a reason for the Court to reconsider its previous ruling on dismissal, his motion
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 18, 2018
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3