McElrath et al v. City of Cleveland et al
Filing
70
Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, Plaintiffs' Motion to supplement motion to alter or amend the judgment or, in the alternative, for relief from final judgment is denied (Related Doc # 69 ). Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 2/26/2018.(K,K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
AYANNA McELRATH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:16 CV 2907
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court upon “Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement their Motion to Alter
or Amend the Judgment (Doc #: 398) or, in the Alternative, for Relief from Final Judgment
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” (Doc #: 69.) On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order granting the Motion for Sanctions filed by Defendants and dismissed the case
with prejudice. (Doc #: 67.) Plaintiffs now ask the Court to alter or amend its judgment under
Rule 59(e) or for relief from final judgment under Rule 60(b). For the following reasons, the
Motion is DENIED.
I.
A motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may
only be granted if there is “a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening
change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice.” Urso v. Farley, No. 4:12 CV 1261,
2013 WL 5309111, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 19, 2013 (citing GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l
Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). It may not be used to “relitigate issues already
decided or matters that could have been raised earlier.” Id. (citing Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 616 (6th Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs, who have spent 21 pages
making little sense at all, have not cited a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, or an
intervening change in controlling law upon which the Court may alter its judgment. They have
failed to show manifest injustice.
Rule 60(b) requires a showing of “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.” Horton
v. Sheets, No. 2012 WL 3777431 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 2012) (citing Taylor v. Streicher, 469 Fed.
App’x 467, 468 (66h Cir. 2012). There are no exception or extraordinary circumstances
justifying relief from the Court’s judgment.
Plaintiffs state, “Your honor and defendants kinship seems to be showing again.” (Doc
#: 69 at 5.) The Court reminds Plaintiffs, who are representing themselves, that it denied
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss five of their claims. (Doc #: 30.)
II.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc #: 69) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Dan A. Polster February 26, 2018
Dan Aaron Polster
United States District Judge
-2-
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?