Serna v. Jackson et al
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 14 MOTION to Reopen Case titled as Motion to Reawaken Closed Case, by Plaintiff Brandon Serna. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/7/2021. (lhc)
USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00695-RLM-MGG document 15 filed 01/07/21 page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-695-RLM-MGG
JACKSON, et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER
Brandon Serna, a prisoner without a lawyer, initiated this case by filing a
complaint that didn’t state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On
November 16, 2020, the court have him an opportunity to file an amended
complaint. The court set a deadline of December 14, 2020, for him to amend his
complaint. Mr. Serna filed his amended complaint on November 30. The
amended complaint also didn’t state a claim on which relief could be granted,
and the court dismissed the case on December 3. Now, Mr. Serna has filed a
motion seeking to “reawaken” his closed case, which this court construes as a
motion for reconsideration.
Because he filed the motion within 28 days of the entry of judgment, the
court looks to the substance of the motion to determine whether it should be
analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). Obriecht v.
Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 493-494 (7th Cir. 2008). “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 fact. Vacating a judgment
USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00695-RLM-MGG document 15 filed 01/07/21 page 2 of 2
under Rule 60(b) is permissible for a variety of reasons including mistake,
excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud.” Harrington v. City of
Chi., 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). Neither a Rule
59 motion nor a Rule 60 motion is appropriately used to make arguments that
should have been made before judgment. Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 683
F.3d 805, 813 (7th Cir. 2012); Karraker v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., 411 F.3d 831, 837
(7th Cir. 2005).
Mr. Serna asserts that the COVID-19 pandemic and restricted law library
access kept him from amending his complaint by the December 14 deadline.
That’s inaccurate. Mr. Serna amended his complaint. ECF 10. The court didnr
grant Mr. Serna a second opportunity to amend. Mr. Serna has attached a
proposed amended complaint to his motion that names an additional defendant,
Wexford of Indiana, LLC. Mr. Serna’s motion points to no manifest error of law
or fact, mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Instead,
it appears that Mr. Serna has a new theory of liability – that Wexford’s policies
or customs caused his injury - and he simply wants another bite at the apple.
He has provided no basis for providing him with such an opportunity here.
For these reasons, the motion seeking reconsideration (ECF 14) is
SO ORDERED on January 7, 2021
s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
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?