Bure v. Gann et al

Filing 42

OPINION AND ORDER: The motion to reconsider 41 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 11/22/2024. (ash)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
KEVIN JAMES BURE,
Plaintiff,
v.
C. GANN, ERIN WILLIAMS, SMILEY,
R. RHODES, CORLEY, KENNETH
REED, and JOHN OR JANE DOE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 3:24-CV-362-JVB-APR

OPINION AND ORDER
Kevin James Bure, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a motion asking to reconsider the
order dismissing this case. (ECF 41). Bure does not identify the legal basis for this motion, but it
must be denied under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. “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.” Emerson v. Dart, 109 F.4th 936, 943 (7th Cir. 2024) quoting
Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006). An order granting relief under
Rule 60(b) is an “extraordinary” remedy reserved for “exceptional circumstances.” O’Brien v. Vill.
of Lincolnshire, 955 F.3d 616, 629 (7th Cir. 2020). Rule 60 relief is only available under “a limited
set of circumstances,” Blitch v. United States, 39 F.4th 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted),
none of which apply here.
Bure alleged the defendants have him in the wrong security classification. (ECF 1). The
Court screened the original complaint and found it did not state a claim because
[i]t is well-settled in this Circuit that a convicted inmate has “no liberty interest in
his security classification.” Earls v. Buske, No. 22-1193, 2022 WL 3928515, at *1
(7th Cir. Aug. 31, 2022) citing DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F.2d 211, 212 (7th Cir.
1992) (“[P]risoners possess neither liberty nor property [interests] in their
classifications and prison assignments.”); see also Healy v. Wisconsin, 65 F. App’x
567, 568 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates do not have a protected liberty interest in a

particular security classification.”); Taylor v. Levesque, 246 F. App’x 772 (2d Cir.
2007) (prisoner did not have a protected liberty interest in his security
classification).
ECF 36 at 1-2. The Court explained, “[t]hough it appears unlikely he can state a claim based on
(and consistent with) the events described in this complaint, he will be granted leave to try.” Id. at
2. Bure filed an amended complaint, but the Court found it did not state a claim either. (ECF 39).
In the motion to reconsider, Bure asserts his rights were violated, but he does not know
how to explain this so that he can state a claim. He wants the Court to recruit a lawyer to represent
him so he can “show it in the correct manner.” (ECF 41 at 1). However, this case was not dismissed
because Bure was unable to explain his claim; it was dismissed because the facts alleged do not
state a claim.
When confronted with a request under § 1915(e)(1) for pro bono counsel, the
district court is to make the following inquiries: (1) has the indigent plaintiff made
a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so;
and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to
litigate it himself?
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, Bure competently explained the facts of
his claim, but those facts do not demonstrate that his rights were violated. There is no basis for
recruiting a lawyer when Bure has no viable claim. Watts v. Kidman, 42 F.4th 755, 758 (7th Cir.
2022) (finding district courts may make “assessments of a litigant’s prospect of prevailing”
because “pro bono lawyers are not a limitless resource”).
Bure repeats that he is being treated differently from other inmates, but as explained in the
dismissal order, he is not. He is being retained in Level 2 Classification because has too many
points for a Level 1 Classification as a result of a recently discovered out-of-state misdemeanor. It
is understandable that he is upset this old conviction was only recently added to his classification
review, but its delayed inclusion is not a basis for a federal lawsuit. Neither the original complaint

2

nor the amended complaint stated a claim. There is no basis for reconsidering the order dismissing
this case.
For these reasons, the motion to reconsider (ECF 41) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on November 22, 2024.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3