RILEY v. CARTER et al
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT - Mr. Riley's motion to alter or amend the judgment, dkt. 16 , is denied. His motion for a ruling on the motion to alter or amend the judgment, dkt. 21 , is granted to the extent that the Court issues this Order. (SEE ORDER.) Copy sent to plaintiff via US mail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 9/16/2022. (TPS)
Case 1:22-cv-00008-JPH-DML Document 22 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 323
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
STATE OF INDIANA,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT
Indiana prisoner Clinton Riley has filed a motion to alter or amend the
judgment. For the reasons explained below, this motion is denied.
Indiana prisoner Clinton Riley filed this lawsuit alleging that Indiana
Department of Correction Commissioner Robert Carter, the five members of the
Indiana parole board, and the State of Indiana violated his constitutional rights
by revoking his parole. Dkt. 1.
The Court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the complaint did not
allege that Commissioner Carter was personally involved in any constitutional
violation, that he may not sue members of the parole board for their decision to
revoke his parole, that he may not challenge the fact or duration of his custody
or the conditions of his parole in a civil rights lawsuit, and that the Eleventh
Case 1:22-cv-00008-JPH-DML Document 22 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 324
Amendment prohibits lawsuits against the State of Indiana in federal court.
Dkt. 10. The Court provided Mr. Riley with an opportunity to show cause why
the action should not be dismissed. Id. at 4. The Court reviewed Mr. Riley's
response but found that the action must be dismissed. Dkts. 12 (response); dkt.
14 (dismissal). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the action and entered final
judgment for the defendants. Dkts. 14, 15.
Mr. Riley has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Dkt. 16.
He argues that "the Court's Order of Dismissal" includes "misinterpretations and
/ or erroneous conclusions . . . of law." Id. at para. 4. The motion then discusses
exhaustion of remedies (para. 5); summarily states that "respondents /
defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity" (para. 6); states that the Court
"misinterprets petition for injunctive relief as a means for exemption to pay
$40.00 . . . when clearly the causes for warranted relief were detailed . . . which
ultimately eliminate final year of parole liability" (para. 7); recounts various cases
Mr. Riley filed in state court and federal court (para. 8); summarily argues that
a civil rights lawsuit is "the only means of remedy left available to redress proven
manifest constitutional error(s) and manifest constitutional rights violations . . .
and other questions of law unaddressed by other courts and administrative
processes for which claims are unrefuted" (para. 9); argues that the "respondents
/ defendants to date have failed to respond / challenge / refute my claims and
evidence shown," (para. 10); and argues that he has been denied "any 6th
Amendment semblance to the right to confront the true cause for which myself
Case 1:22-cv-00008-JPH-DML Document 22 Filed 09/16/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 325
as the plaintiff(s) / claimant(s) equal protection of the laws were infringed upon
that results in deprivation of liberty" (concluding paragraph). Dkt. 16.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) authorizes courts to alter or amend a
final judgment for a manifest error of law or fact or upon the presentation of
newly discovered evidence. Vesey v. Envoy Air, Incorporated, 999 F.3d 456, 463
(7th Cir. 2021). Relief under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy reserved for
the exceptional case. Id. A Rule 59(e) motion is an opportunity for the district
court to correct its own errors before appeal; it is not a replay of the main event—
evidence and arguments that could have and should have been presented before
judgment are not grounds for relief. Obriech v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th
Mr. Riley's motion to alter or amend the judgment lists a number of
grievances, but none of these grievances show that Mr. Riley is entitled to the
"extraordinary remedy" of reopening this lawsuit. As the Court previously
explained, Mr. Riley's complaint does not allege facts against Commissioner
Carter. The members of the Indiana parole board are entitled to absolute
immunity for the decision to revoke his parole. A civil rights lawsuit may not
seek release from custody or alteration of parole conditions. And the Eleventh
Amendment prohibits lawsuits against the State of Indiana in federal court. See
dkt. 14 (citing Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2006); Dawson v.
Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 662 (7th Cir. 2005); Joseph v. Board of Regents of
University of Wisconsin System, 432 F.3d 746, 748 (7th Cir. 2005); Colbert v. City
Case 1:22-cv-00008-JPH-DML Document 22 Filed 09/16/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 326
of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017). None of the arguments in
Mr. Riley's motion to alter or amend the judgment shows that the dismissal of
this action was based on a manifest error of law or fact.
Accordingly, Mr. Riley's motion to alter or amend the judgment, dkt. ,
is denied. His motion for a ruling on the motion to alter or amend the judgment,
dkt. , is granted to the extent that the Court issues this Order.
NEW CASTLE - CF
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?