BLEVINS v. INDIANA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 85

ENTRY denying 84 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/25/2012. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
KEVIN J. BLEVINS,
v.

Plaintiff,

SGT. D. PATTON, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:09-cv-1413-TWP-TAB

ENTRY
This civil rights action was dismissed on August 20, 2010 [Dkt. 71], based on
the plaintiff’s failure to obey an order of the court. The matter presently before the
court is the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration filed on November 16, 2011,
along with his notice of address change.
“Rule 60 regulates the procedures by which a party may obtain relief from a
final judgment . . . . The rule attempts to strike a proper balance between the
conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and that justice
should be done.” 11 Charles Alan Wright and Andrew D. Liepold, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2851 (4th ed. 2008). "A Rule 60(b) motion permits
relief from judgment [only] when it is based on one of six specific grounds listed in
the rule." Talano v. Northwestern Med. Faculty Found., 273 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir.
2001). A motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) permits a party to
seek relief from judgment on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, excusable

neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud. American Federation of Grain
Millers, Local 24 v. Cargill Inc., 15 F.3d 726, 728 (7th Cir. 1994). It also authorizes
relief for "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment."
Rule 60(b), F.R.Civ.P.
In order for a Rule 60(b) movant to obtain the relief requested, he must show
that he had both grounds for relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(5), and a meritorious
claim or defense. Breuer Electric Mfg. Co. v. Toronado Systems of America, Inc., 687
F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1982). His motion for reconsideration does not show either of
these circumstances. Additionally, relief from judgment under Rule 60 is warranted
"only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances that create substantial danger
that the underlying judgment was unjust." Margoles v. Johns, 798 F.2d 1069, 1073
(7th Cir. 1986). Blevins’ motion does not establish or even suggest that this is the
case here. Finally, reinstatement is not an available avenue when, as here, a case is
dismissed without prejudice. Rather, “after a dismissal without prejudice, the
plaintiff can resurrect his lawsuit only by filing a new complaint.” U.S. v. Ligas, 549
F.3d 497, 503 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting that “[t]here is a difference between dismissing
a suit without prejudice and dismissing a suit with leave to reinstate”).
For all of the foregoing reasons, therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration [Dkt. 84] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/25/2012
Date: __________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Bruce Benjamin Paul
STITES & HARBISON, LLP
[e-mail]
Kevin J. Blevins
1009 Manck Drive
Ft. Wayne, IN 46814