DIRING v. WEXFORD MEDICAL et al

Filing 188

ENTRY DENYING POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS - This action was dismissed on summary judgment in favor of the defendants on February 26, 2019. Dkt. 170 ; dkt. 171 . The plaintiff's motion to correct erroneous sentence, filed on April 24, 2019, dkt. [18 6], treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, is denied because he has not shown that the decision in this case was erroneous. "Rule 60(b) authorizes a court to relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for various reasons including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, or any other reason that justifies relief, but only on motion of a party." Shuffle Tech Intern., LLC v. Wolff Gaming, Inc., 757 F.3d 708, 709 (7th Cir. 2014) (i nternal quotations omitted). Rule 60(b)(6) is "available only in extraordinary circumstances." Pearson v. Target Corporation, 893 F3d 980, 984 (7th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation omitted). No such extraordinary circumstances are presente d in the plaintiff's post-judgment motion. The plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, dkt. 187 , is denied for the same reasons his previous request was denied in the Entry of April 10, 2019, dkt. 184 (USCA #17-3509) Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 4/30/2019. (JDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER J. DIRIG,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD OF INDIANA,
NURSE KATHRYN HILL,
NURSE REBECCA TRIVETT,
Defendants.

No. 1:17-cv-02165-JRS-DML

ENTRY DENYING POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS
I.
This action was dismissed on summary judgment in favor of the defendants on February
26, 2019. Dkt. 170; dkt. 171. The plaintiff’s motion to correct erroneous sentence, filed on April
24, 2019, dkt. [186], treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, is denied because he has not shown that the
decision in this case was erroneous. “Rule 60(b) authorizes a court to relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for various reasons including mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, or any other reason that justifies relief, but only on
motion of a party.” Shuffle Tech Intern., LLC v. Wolff Gaming, Inc., 757 F.3d 708, 709 (7th Cir.
2014) (internal quotations omitted). Rule 60(b)(6) is “available only in extraordinary
circumstances.” Pearson v. Target Corporation, 893 F3d 980, 984 (7th Cir. 2018) (internal
quotation omitted). No such extraordinary circumstances are presented in the plaintiff’s postjudgment motion.

II.
The plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, dkt. [187], is
denied for the same reasons his previous request was denied in the Entry of April 10, 2019, dkt.
184.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 4/30/2019

Distribution:
CHRISTOPHER J. DIRIG
157156
INDIANA STATE PRISON
INDIANA STATE PRISON
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Douglass R. Bitner
KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C.
[e-mail]