Byrd v. Hurley et al
OPINION AND ORDER denying 14 MOTION for Reconsideration and 19 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 6/6/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
STEPHEN A. BYRD,
ELIZABETH C. HURLEY, et al.,
CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-820 JM
OPINION AND ORDER
Stephen A. Byrd, a pro se prisoner, moves for reconsideration of the dismissal of
his case. (DE # 14.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party to request the
court alter or amend a judgment, but it is an “extraordinary remed[y] reserved for the
exceptional case.” Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008). Rule 59 motions are
intended for the limited purpose of correcting a “manifest error,” which “‘is not
demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party.” Loparex, LLC v. MPI Release
Technologies, LLC, 1:09-CV-01411, 2012 WL 6094141 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 7, 2012) (quotations
and citations omitted). Instead, the Seventh Circuit has taught that a Rule 59(e) motion
should be granted “where the court has misunderstood a party, where the court has
made an error of apprehension (not reasoning), where a significant change of law
occurred, or where significant new facts have been discovered. Broaddus v. Shields, 665
F.3d 846, 860 (7th Cir. 2011).
Byrd’s motion to reconsider does not fit the bill. He sued St. Joseph County
Prosecutors Kenneth P. Cotter and Amiee B. Herring for bringing charges against him
and also sued St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hurley based on her pre-trial
rulings. Byrd sought: (1) a writ of mandamus; (2) the recusal of Judge Hurley; (3) the
transfer his criminal case out of St. Joseph County Superior Court; (4) dismissal of the
state criminal charges based on double jeopardy; and (4) money damages. In the
screening order, the court explained that none of this stated a claim. (DE # 11.) Byrd has
provided no basis in the present motion to disturb the judgment. Nor does the court
find any such basis.
Byrd also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (DE ## 15, 19.) “An
appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is
not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). As was fully explained in the order
dismissing Mr. Byrd’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, his complaint did not state a
claim for relief. Mr. Byrd generally asserts that the court erred and should not have
dismissed the case pursuant to §1915A, but he does not identify any meritorious
arguments for overturning the court’s dismissal of his complaint. The court concludes
that this appeal is not taken in good faith, and accordingly, the request for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis will be denied.
For these reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (DE # 14) and motions for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (DE ## 15, 19) on appeal are DENIED.
Date: June 6, 2017
s/ James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?