Holland v. Gary The City of et al

Filing 364

OPINION AND ORDER denying Motion to Set Aside 357 and the motions contained within the Notice to the Court, and Request for Ruling or Status Conference 363 . The Court WARNS Plaintiff that any further frivolous filings may result in the Court holding him in contempt of court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 4/24/2014. (cc: Holland) (rmn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ROBERT HOLLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF GARY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 2:10-CV-454-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Set Aside [DE 357], filed by Plaintiff on
October 29, 2013, and a Notice to The Court, and Request for Ruling or Status Conference [DE
363], filed by Plaintiff on March 25, 2014. The Motion to Set Aside became fully briefed on
November 18, 2013.
I. Background
As might be guessed by the enormous number of docket entries, this case has a long and
convoluted history. The Plaintiff, proceeding in this matter pro se, filed his Complaint in this Court
on November 15, 2010. The Complaint includes two counts of police misconduct alleged against
seven defendants, including municipal entities and officers in their official capacities.
On December 22, 2010, Lake County Sheriff Dominguez and the Warden of the Lake
County Jail filed Answers. On December 23, 2010, the City of Gary, then-Mayor Rudy Clay, City
of Gary Chief of Police, Johnny Gill, and Officer Termell Williams (the “Gary Defendants”) filed
an Answer. On January 3, 2011, the Lake County Board of Commissioners filed its Answer.
On December 27, 2011, the Court entered an Order granting in part the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendants the City of Gary, City of Gary Chief of Police, Rudy Clay, Johnny
Gill, and Tremell Williamson, leaving only two claims pending against the Gary Defendants: abuse

of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On December 6, 2012, the Court entered
an Order granting the second Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Gary Defendants, leaving
the Lake County Defendants as the only remaining defendants in the case.
On January 8, 2013, the Court granted the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendant Lake County Board of Commissioners and Defendants Sheriff Dominguez and the
Warden of the Lake County Jail, and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
On January 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Correct Errors and to Set Aside the Orders
of December 27, 2011 and December 6, 2012, requesting reconsideration of the Court’s Orders
granting summary judgment to the Gary Defendants, and on February 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Correct Errors and to Set Aside the Orders of December 27, 2011, December 6, 2012 and
January 8, 2013.
On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal indicating that he was appealing this
Court’s grants of Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment to the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. On March 5, 2013, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff’s requests for
reconsideration. Plaintiff then asked the Court to reconsider its decision not to reconsider its grant
of summary judgment, which this Court denied on April 23, 2013.
The Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s grant of summary judgment on October 2, 2013.
Not to be deterred, Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Set Aside on October 29, 2013, seeking relief
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
The parties orally agreed on the record to have this case assigned to a United States
Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings and to order the entry of a final judgment in this
case. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to decide this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

2

II. Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 provides for relief from a judgment or order for:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “Rule 60(b) relief is an extraordinary remedy and is granted only in
exceptional circumstances.” Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Flanders Elec. Motor Serv., Inc., 131 F.3d 625,
628 (7th Cir.1997).
The Court finds that none of the Rule 60 categories apply here. Rather, Plaintiff is attempting
again to religitgate summary judgment. Indeed, he again asks that summary judgment be granted
in his favor. But there is no newly discovered evidence or change in the law governing these issues,
and Plaintiff has not identified any error of apprehension by the Court. Plaintiff’s motions are hence
both denied. Indeed, both motions are frivolous and wholly without merit. Plaintiff, who is a former
attorney, should know better. This Court’s time is precious and should not be wasted. The Court thus
warns Plaintiff that any further frivolous filings may result in the Court holding him in contempt of
court.

3

III. Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion to Set Aside [DE 357] and the motions
contained within the Notice to the Court, and Request for Ruling or Status Conference [DE 363].
The Court WARNS Plaintiff that any further frivolous filings may result in the Court holding him
in contempt of court.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of April, 2014.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

All counsel of record
Plaintiff, pro se

4