Bond v. South Bend City of
Filing
60
OPINION AND ORDER: DENYING 58 Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend Order and Judgment by John Bond, Sr. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 5/23/2016. (lhc)(cc: Bond)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JOHN BOND, Sr.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF SOUTH BEND,
Defendant.
CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1902
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Memorandum in
Support of Motion to Alter or Amend Order and Judgment,” filed by
pro se Plaintiff, John Bond, Sr., on April 21, 2016 (DE #58).
For
the reasons set forth below, the motion (DE #58) is DENIED.
Plaintiff specifies that he brings this motion under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
First, Rule 59(e) states that a
“motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28
days after the entry of the judgment.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
The
time to file a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) cannot be extended.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2).
Here, judgment was entered on March
23, 2016 (DE #56), and the instant motion was filed on April 21,
2016 (or 29 days after the judgment).
However, according to Rule
6(d)and 5(b)(2)(C), because Plaintiff received the Court’s order by
mail, 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire
under Rule 6(a).
As such, the instant motion was timely filed.
The purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is to bring
to the court's attention “a manifest error of law or fact, or newly
discovered evidence.”
Bordelon v. Chicago School Reform Bd. of
Trustees, 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing LB Credit Corp.
v. Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1995)). It
“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.”
Id.
(quoting Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996)).
It is not intended as an opportunity to reargue the merits of a
case.
See Neal v. Newspaper Holdings, Inc. 349 F.3d 363, 368 (7th
Cir. 2003) (affirming district court’s decision to deny appellants’
Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment where plaintiff simply
reargued the merits of his case).
Moreover, the moving party must
“clearly establish” a manifest error of law or an intervening
change in the controlling law or present newly discovered evidence
to succeed under Rule 59(e).
Romo v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 250
F.3d 1119, 1122 n. 3 (7th Cir. 2001). A manifest error of law under
Rule 59(e) 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).
In this case, reconsideration is not warranted.
2
Bond has
pointed to no manifest error, newly discovered evidence, or change
in law.
This Court properly applied the applicable summary
judgment standards (DE #56 at 2-4), and it is well established that
a “party opposing summary judgment may not rest on the pleadings,
but must affirmatively demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of
material fact for trial.”
Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th
Cir. 2003).
Bond largely rehashes arguments he has already made, which
this Court considered, addressed, and rejected.
A motion to
reconsider is not intended as an opportunity to reargue the merits
of a case.
See Caisse Nationale De Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus.,
Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (finding motions for
reconsideration are not vehicles for “rehashing previously rejected
arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the
pendency of the previous motion.”); see also Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388
F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004) (“A motion that merely republishes
the reasons that had failed to convince the tribunal in the first
place gives the tribunal no reason to change its mind.”).
Additionally, Bond cites often to Tenth Circuit case law which
is not controlling precedent for this Court.
This Court is in the
Seventh Circuit.
For all of these reasons, the Court stands by its opinion and
“Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend
Order and Judgment,” filed by pro se Plaintiff, John Bond, Sr., on
3
April 21, 2016 (DE #58), is DENIED.
DATED: May 23, 2016
/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?