Sabrina v. Harmening

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, denying 39 MOTION for Reconsideration re 37 Memorandum & Order. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/29/2024. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ARCHIBALD SABRINA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:23-cv-3048-JPG

ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 39). The
Plaintiff filed the Motion on December 29, 2023. Being duly advised in the premises having
fully considered the issues and arguments raised, the Court DENIES the Motion.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint on September 8, 2023. (Doc. 1). The complaint went
through multiple amendments but was ultimately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Plaintiff
has now moved to reconsider that order and vacate judgment. (Doc. 39).
The Court construes Sabrina’s motion to be under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
since he mailed it within 28 days of entry of judgment. See Krivak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2
F.4th 601, 604 (7th Cir. 2021) (“[R]egardless of what counsel called it, all substantive motions
filed within the time period described by Rule 59(e) fall under that Rule regardless of the lingo
associated with the post-judgment motion.”).
Under Rule 59(e), a court has the opportunity to consider newly discovered material
evidence or intervening changes in the controlling law or to correct its own manifest errors of
law or fact to avoid unnecessary appellate procedures. Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876
(7th Cir. 1996); see A&C Constr. & Installation, Co. WLL v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 963 F.3d 705,

1

709 (7th Cir. 2020). A “manifest error” occurs when the district court commits a “wholesale
disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807
F.3d 239, 253 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Rule 59(e) “does not
provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures, and it certainly does not allow a
party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and should have been
presented to the district court prior to the judgment.” Moro, 91 F.3d at 876; accord A&C Constr.,
963 F.3d at 709. The Court’s orders “are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and
reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” A&C Constr., 963 F.3d at 709 (internal quotations and
citation omitted). Rule 59(e) relief is only available if the movant clearly establishes one of the
foregoing grounds for relief. Harrington v. City of Chi., 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing
Romo v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 250 F.3d 1119, 1122 n. 3 (7th Cir. 2001)).
In the motion, Sabrina points to no newly discovered material evidence, intervening
changes in the controlling law, or manifest error of law or fact. Sabrina simply disagrees with the
conclusion and asks that the Court “forgive” the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Without
jurisdiction, this Court has no authority to hear this case. The Court does not have jurisdiction
and Sabrina does not advance any additional arguments for subject matter jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For this reason, the Court DENIES Sabrina’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 39). If
Sabrina wishes to appeal the judgment in this case or this decision, Sabrina must file a notice of
appeal with this Court within 60 days of entry of this order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) & 4(a)(4).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 29, 2024
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
2