Villareal v. Connel

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 3/5/2025. (kgk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES VILLAREAL,
M22525,
Plaintiff,
vs.
C/O CONNER,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 24-cv-1453-SPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
On January 29, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case for failing to exhaust his
administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. In the lead-up to this disposition, the
Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause about his use of the grievance process, because it
appeared from his complaint that he filed this lawsuit shortly after the events giving rise
to the lawsuit took place, which suggested he may not have completed exhaustion before
filing. Plaintiff’s filings after the original complaint, as well as his responses to the Order
to Show Cause, indicated clearly and unequivocally that he filed this lawsuit on June 4,
2024, but did not exhaust the grievance process until August 5, 2024. Plaintiff suggested
in response to the Order to Show Cause that he believed he had other viable claims to
present in an amended complaint, but he never filed an actual amended complaint.
Against this backdrop, the Court dismissed the case as filed before exhaustion was
complete, and it advised Plaintiff that the dismissal did NOT prevent him from refiling a
new complaint in the future for any exhausted claims, including those that were

dismissed in this case. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration in a one paragraph
letter where he baldly asserts he filed his complaint with the administration the right
way. (Doc. 19).
A court may alter or amend a judgment if the party files the motion “no later than
28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. “Altering or amending a
judgment under Rule 59(e) is permissible when there is newly discovered evidence or
there has been a manifest error of law or of fact.” Harrington v. City of Chi., 433 F.3d 542,
546 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Bordelon v. Chi. Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir.
2000)). Under Rule 59(e), “[a] ‘manifest error’ is not demonstrated by the disappointment
of the losing party;” it “is the ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication or failure to recognize
controlling precedent.’” Bilek v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, No. 07 C 4147, 2010 WL
3306912 at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010) (quoting Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606
(7th Cir. 2000)). “Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously
rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency
of the previous motion.” Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting Caisse
Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1986)).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider does not present any legal basis to unsettle the
dismissal of this case. His bare assertion that he submitted his complaint properly to the
administrative process does not change the outcome here. As the Court previously
explained, if he has now exhausted his administrative remedies for this case, or for any
other claims, he must file a new lawsuit. A Plaintiff who sues first and exhausts later
cannot revive his lawsuit by an amended pleading, or by going back and correcting his

exhaustion problem within the same original case. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 19) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2025

s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge