COLON v. AKIL et al

Filing 132

ENTRY Granting 128 Plaintiff's Request to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis and Denying 125 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/28/2011. (JLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
CASSANDRA D. COLO’N,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
ALLISON JORDAN,
Defendant.

4:08-cv-026-TWP-DML

Entry Granting Request to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis
and Denying Motion for Reconsideration
I.
The plaintiff’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 128) is
granted.
II.
The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Order of March 25, 2011, (Dkt. No.
125) is denied. In effect, the plaintiff requests that this Court set aside its judgment, reopen
this action, allow time for discovery and then hold a new damages hearing. Plaintiff states
that she did not understand what she was required to demonstrate in order to prove her
damages at the March 2, 2011 hearing. The plaintiff chose to proceed without the benefit
of counsel in this case and had years within which to conduct discovery. The Court issued
Dkt.117 in part, as a courtesy to clarify the issues since plaintiff was proceeding pro se.
Pro se litigants however, are notentitled to a general dispensation from the rules of procedure.
This post-judgment motion will be analyzed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Rule 59(e) "authorizes relief when a moving party 'clearly establish[es]

either a manifest error of law or fact' or 'present[s] newly discovered evidence.'" Souter v.

International Union, 993 F.2d 595, 599 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)). The purpose of a motion to alter or amend
judgment under Rule 59(e) is to have the court reconsider matters "properly encompassed
in a decision on the merits." Osterneck v. Ernst and Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1988).
The Court of Appeals has explained that there are only three valid grounds for a Rule 59(e)
motion--newly-discovered evidence, an intervening change in the law, and manifest error
in law. See Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 732 (7th Cir. 1998).
There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. The court did not
misapprehend the plaintiff’s claims, nor did it misapply the applicable law to those claims.
Accordingly, the post-judgment motion to alter or amend judgment (Dkt. No. 125) must be
denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

04/28/2011

Distribution:
Cassandra D. Colo'n
P.O. Box 3113
Clarksville, IN 47131
Allison Jordan
851 Oakside Lane
University Park, IL 60466

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana