HUNTER v. SHERIFF WILLIAMS et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
MICHAEL HOWARD HUNTER,
Under the E-Government Act and
Judicial Conference policy
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  lacks a coherent statement of reasonable
specification for the relief sought, that motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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?