Hutcherson v. Talbot et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying 66 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 12/26/2017. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LONNIE HUTCHERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. TALBOT et al.,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-253-DRH-RJD
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Introduction & Background
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the
Order adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Reona J.
Daly (Doc. 66).1 The Order at issues denied plaintiff Hutcherson’s motion for
preliminary injunction (Doc. 6). Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its
Order arguing that prison doctors are simply putting “a Band-Aid on a bullet
wound.” (Doc. 66).
Technically, a “motion to reconsider” does not exist under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The Seventh Circuit has held, however, that a motion
challenging the merits of a district court order will automatically be considered as
having been filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the FEDERAL RULES

OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE. See, e.g., Mares v. Busby, 34 F.3d 533, 535 (7th Cir.1994);
1

Plaintiff’s motion also makes reference to a request for appointment of counsel. In light of the
pending November 14, 2017 motion for appointment of counsel before Magistrate Judge Daly
(Doc. 69), the Court declines to address the appointment of counsel issue at this time.

Page 1 of 3

United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 300 (7th Cir. 1992). Whether a motion
for reconsideration should be analyzed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) depends
on the substance of the motion, not on the timing or label affixed to it. Obriecht v.
Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 493 (7th Cir. 2008). Because Hutcherson’s motion
asserts a manifest error of fact by the Court in denying a preliminary injunction,
and because it was filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment, the Court
reviews Hutcherson’s motion under Rule 59(e). See id.
Rule 59(e) permits a court to amend a judgment only if the movant
demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact or presents newly discovered
evidence. A “manifest error” is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the
losing party, but rather is the “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to
recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606
(7th Cir. 2000). “This rule enables the court to correct its own errors and thus
avoid unnecessary appellate procedures.” Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 683
F.3d 805, 814 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
The decision to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion is entrusted to the “sound
judgment” of the district court. Id.
Upon a thorough and complete review of the record, the Court remains
persuaded that the Order adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Daly and denying Hutcherson’s request for a preliminary injunction (Doc.
61) in this matter was correct. The record supports the denial of injunctive relief,
and the motion to reconsider does not present any new evidence justifying such

Page 2 of 3

relief, nor does it present any manifest errors of fact or law. Therefore, the Court
DENIES Hutcherson’s motion to reconsider (Doc. 66).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2017.12.26
16:16:48 -06'00'
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3