Filing 55

ORDER denying 54 Motion to Vacate 48 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment and Declaratory Judgment and 49 Closed Judgment. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/22/2011. (SMD)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA MICHAEL HOWARD HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF WILLIAMS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Written Opinion Under the E-Government Act and Judicial Conference policy No. 3:10-cv-0101-JMS-WGH Order Denying Motion to Vacate Motions require reasons. Rule 7(b)(1) states in relevant part, "An application to the court for an order shall be made by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought." Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1). In the Seventh Circuit, "particularity" has been interpreted to mean "reasonable specification." Talano v. Northwestern Med. Faculty Found., Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 760 (7th Cir. 2001). Because the motion to vacate [54] lacks a coherent statement of reasonable specification for the relief sought, that motion is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. 09/22/2011 Date: _________________ Distribution: Michael Hunter 3500 Harlan Ave Evansville, IN 47711 _______________________________ Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

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?