PARKER v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION N.A. et al

Filing 166

ORDER - Presently pending before the Court is a Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal filed by pro se Plaintiff Brenda Parker. [Filing No. 165 .] Ms. Parker seeks to supplement the record of her case on appeal with a receipt from Federal Expr ess ("Fed Ex") that she claims shows the date on which her Second Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint was mailed. [Filing No. 165 at 1.] For the reasons stated herein, Ms. Parker's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal is not properly brought pursuant to Rule 10(e) because she seeks to add new material to the record on appeal that was not before this Court. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ms. Parker's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal. As set forth herein, Ms. Parker's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, 165 , is DENIED. (See Order). Copies to parties pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/15/2018. (APD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BRENDA PARKER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
OFFICER LOYAL, in official and individual
capacity,
OFFICER PILKINGTON, in official and
individual capacity,
OFFICER ROLINSON, in official and
individual capacity,
MARK SENESAC,
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS,
Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00826-JMS-TAB

ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is a Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal filed
by pro se Plaintiff Brenda Parker. [Filing No. 165.] Ms. Parker seeks to supplement the record of
her case on appeal with a receipt from Federal Express (“Fed Ex”) that she claims shows the date
on which her Second Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint was mailed. [Filing No. 165
at 1.]
I.
BACKGROUND
In 2015, Ms. Parker filed suit in this matter alleging numerous claims related to the
repossession of her vehicle in May of 2014. [Filing No. 11.] Over the next two years, the Court
entered final judgment against Ms. Parker on each of her claims. [Filing No. 123; Filing No. 152.]
Throughout the pendency of her case, Ms. Parker attempted to revive her claims via numerous
motions, resulting in orders from this Court that repeatedly summarized, both procedurally and

substantively, the history of this case. Ms. Parker’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal,
[Filing No. 165], is no different and necessitates the following summary of events.
On March 6, 2017, Ms. Parker’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
was docketed. [Filing No. 95.] Numerous defendants objected to Ms. Parker’s request to amend
her Complaint. [Filing No. 101; Filing No. 106.] After noting that Ms. Parker did not file a reply
brief, the Court stated that “[a]lthough Ms. Parker filed her Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint
almost one week after the deadline to do so had passed, the Court will still consider her request on the
merits.” [Filing No. 120 at 5.] The Court went on to specifically list—in five bullet points spanning

nearly four pages—the various substantive bases for its decision to deny her motion. [Filing No.
120 at 5-8.] The Court ultimately concluded that Ms. Parker had not established any basis to
amend her complaint and denied Ms. Parker’s Motion. [Filing No. 120 at 8.]
On September 12, 2017, the Court entered final judgment against Ms. Parker. [Filing No.
152.] One month later, Ms. Parker appealed the entry of final judgment to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. [Filing No. 154.] She now seeks to supplement the record on
appeal with evidence that she claims is “essential” to proving that this Court erred in denying her
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint – specifically, the Fed Ex receipt allegedly
showing that she mailed her Motion on February, 28, 2017, rather than on March 6, 2017, the date
it was docketed. [Filing No. 165 at 1-2.]
All parties adverse to Ms. Parker have been dismissed from this action and no response is
anticipated. As such, pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(d), the Court now considers Ms. Parker’s Motion
to Supplement the Record on Appeal in advance of the passing of the response deadline.

2

II.
DISCUSSION
The Court construes Ms. Parker’s present Motion as a motion to modify the record on
appeal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 10(a) provides that
the record on appeal is comprised of: “(1) the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court;
(2) the transcript of proceedings, if any; and (3) a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by
the district clerk.” Fed. R. App. P. 10(a). In addition, Rule 10(e) provides, in relevant part, that if
anything “material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or accident,”
a district court may certify and forward the omission or misstatement. Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2)(B).
The purpose of Rule 10(e) “is to ensure that the record on appeal accurately reflects the
proceedings in the trial court . . . not to enable the losing party to add new material to the record
in order to collaterally attack the trial court’s judgment.” United States v. Elizalde-Adame, 262
F.3d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 2001). Courts have denied motions to supplement where a party seeks to
add documents to the record on appeal that were not part of the record before the district court.
Stewart v. Colvin, 2016 WL 6126912, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2016); Edmonds v. Operating
Engineers Local 139, 2009 WL 2983066, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 14, 2009).
In this case, the Fed Ex record that Ms. Parker seeks to add to the appellate record was not
a part of the record before this Court during its consideration of her case. She did not, for example,
file the Fed Ex record in support of any reply in opposition to the various objections to her Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; indeed, she did not file any reply whatsoever. Nor
did she file the Fed Ex record in support of her Motion to Set Aside Partial Final Judgment, in
which she made specific arguments regarding the timing of her filing of the Motion for Leave to
File Second Amended Complaint. [Filing No. 128.] Ms. Parker’s Motion to Supplement the
Record on Appeal is therefore not properly brought pursuant to Rule 10(e) because she seeks to
3

add new material to the record on appeal that was not before this Court. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES Ms. Parker’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal.
III.
CONCLUSION
As set forth herein, Ms. Parker’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, [165], is
DENIED.

Date: 2/15/2018

Distribution via US Mail:
BRENDA PARKER
1427 W. 86TH STREET
#609
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260
Mark Senesac
1900 Hart Street, Suite 37D
Dyer, IN 46311
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record

4