COLE v. INDIANA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

Filing 31

ORDER denying 30 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/6/2015. (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MAURICE COLE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TRENH, COLEMAN, T. EDMONDS,

)
)
)
) Case No. 1:14-cv-0318-TWP-DKL
)
)
)

Defendants.
Entry Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
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). 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)).
Relief through a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remed[y]
reserved for the exceptional case.” Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008). A Rule
59(e) motion may be used “to draw the district court’s attention to a manifest error of law or fact
or to newly discovered evidence.” United States v. Resnick, 594 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2010). A
“manifest error” means “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling
precedent.” Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000).
There was no manifest error of law or fact in this case. See dkt. 28. The court did not
misapprehend the facts in this action, nor did it misapply the law to those facts in finding that
summary judgment for the defendants was required. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider [Dkt.
30] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 4/6/2015

Distribution:
Maurice Cole, # 113947
Westville Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant
Court Only
Electronically registered counsel