Ladyman v. Meade et al

Filing 69

ORDER DENYING 68 MOTION for Enlargement of Time and Set Aside Judgement by Plaintiff Craig C. Ladyman. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 12/14/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(sct)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CRAIG C. LADYMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NICHOLAS MEADE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:14CV2038-PPS

ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Craig C. Ladyman has brought this civil rights action asserting
claims arising out of his arrest and prosecution after a traffic stop by Indiana State
Troopers. Recently Ladyman has filed a motion that can be quickly addressed.
Ladyman’s “Motion for Enlargement of Time and Set Aside Judgment” [DE 68] is a
compound motion trying to do two things at once. This alone might be a basis for
striking the motion as procedurally flawed, as the court’s local rules require separate
motions to be filed separately. See N.D. Ind. Local Rule 7-1(a). Ladyman is advised to
avoid such compound requests for two unrelated types of relief in a single filing.
In this instance I will address both motions rather than require refiling. The first
request is for an additional 14 days to respond to a motion to reconsider filed by
defendants Bohner, Meade and Smith. Because the motion for additional time is itself
untimely, and because Magistrate Judge Gotsch ruled on the motion more than three
weeks ago, I will deny the motion for additional time.

The second aspect of Ladyman’s motion seeks to set aside Judge Moody’s
dismissal of Ladyman’s claims against State Trooper Smith. Judge Moody dismissed
the original claims against Smith on September 29, 2016 [DE 20] and the claims against
Smith in the amended complaint on April 28, 2017 [DE 36], both times on the basis that
the finality of Ladyman’s state convictions had preclusive effect and barred the §1983
claims against the Troopers. In his new motion, Ladyman supports setting aside that
judgment based on a single paragraph in which is alleges that Smith “fraudulently
signed the Information Charging Document filed on the [state] court September 17,
2013" and “made false affidavits” in support of the charges. [DE 68 at 2.]
There’s nothing new about this allegation that would support a fresh analysis
under Federal Rule 60(b). In both the original and amended complaints, the pleading of
Ladyman’s claim against State Trooper Smith was predicated on the allegation that
Smith “signed and affirmed a false affidavit” in support of the state charges. [DE 1 at
¶¶13 & 14; DE 25 at ¶7.] Rule 60(b)(3) authorizes relief from a judgment based on fraud
by an opposing party, meaning fraud in the context of this legal proceeding that
prevented Ladyman from fully and fairly presenting a meritorious claim here. Philos
Technologies, Inc. v. Philos & D, Inc., 802 F.3d 905, 917 (7th Cir. 2015). Ladyman does not
present a ground for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) merely by repeating the
allegation of fraud by Smith that he made in support of his original claim that has been
dismissed. The motion to set aside judgment will be denied.
ACCORDINGLY:
2

Plaintiff Craig C. Ladyman’s “Motion for Enlargement of Time and Set Aside
Judgment” [DE 68] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: December 14, 2017.
/s/ Philip P. Simon
United States District Court Judge

3