BIGSBY v. STATE OF INDIANA et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 9 Plaintiff's Motion - This civil rights action was dismissed on June 14, 2012, based on the court's determination that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The entry of judgment has been followed with the filing of the plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment on July 11, 2012. There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. When assessing the complaint, the court did not misapprehend the plaintiff's cla ims or misapply the law to those claims in light of the applicable law. Accordingly, the motion for relief from judgment 9 , treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment, is denied. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/25/2012. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NICK BIGSBY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF INDIANA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-709-JMS-TAB

Entry Discussing Motion for Relief from Judgment
This civil rights action was dismissed on June 14, 2012, based on the court's
determination that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. The entry of judgment has been followed with the filing of the plaintiff's
motion for relief from judgment on July 11, 2012.
The date a post-judgment motion is filed is significant. See Hope v. United
States, 43 F.3d 1140, 1142 (7th Cir. 1994). So too, of course, is the content of such
motion. Given the timing of the motion for relief from judgment, and given the
argument set forth in such motion, the motion seeks relief within the scope of Rule
59(e) and is thus treated as a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 701-02 (7th Cir. 2006)
(explaining that whether a motion filed within the time period contemplated by
Rule 59(e) should be analyzed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure depends on the substance of the motion, not on the timing or label
affixed to it).
As explained in the Entry of June 14, 2012, the plaintiff sued the State of
Indiana, the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, the current and former Marion
County Prosecutors, and Deputy Prosecutor Eric Schmadeke. It was also explained
in that same Entry that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted as to any of the defendants. The dismissal of the action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) was therefore mandatory. Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility,
302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002).
Rule 59(e) "authorizes relief when a moving party 'clearly establish[es] either
a manifest error of law or fact' or 'present[s] newly discovered evidence.'" Souter v.
International Union, 993 F.2d 595, 599 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins.

Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)). The purpose of a motion to
alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) is to have the court reconsider matters
"properly encompassed in a decision on the merits." Osterneck v. Ernst and
Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1988). The Court of Appeals has explained that there
are only three valid grounds for a Rule 59(e) motion--newly-discovered evidence, an
intervening change in the law, and manifest error in law. See Cosgrove v.
Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 732 (7th Cir. 1998).
There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. See Russell v. Delco
Remy Div. of General Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995). When
assessing the complaint, the court did not misapprehend the plaintiff’s claims or
misapply the law to those claims in light of the applicable law. Accordingly, the
motion for relief from judgment [9], treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment,
is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

07/25/2012
Date: __________________

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
NICK BIGSBY
915268
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064