Timbuktu et al v. WE Energies et al

Filing 97

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 2/9/2017 DENYING 96 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Adib K. Timbuktu and Dennice Moore) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ADIB K. TIMBUKTU and DENNICE
MOORE,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 12-CV-720-JPS

v.
NEAL, EDWARD A. FLYNN, OFFICER
GREGORY HUNTER, CITY OF
MILWAUKEE DEPARTMENT OF
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, and
BLUNT,

ORDER

Defendants.
On February 7, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking this Court to
reconsider its January 12, 2017 order. (Docket #96). The January 12 order
denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the Clerk of the Court’s bill of costs
issued on December 28, 2016. (Docket #95). The motion was denied because
the plaintiffs claimed indigency without evidentiary support. See Rivera v.
City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir. 2006). The motion for
reconsideration attempts to provide that evidence. (Docket #96 at 1-2).
Even assuming the evidence was sufficient to show indigency, the
motion for reconsideration must be denied for an additional reason identified
in the Court’s January 12 order. The Court explained:
[T]he plaintiffs’ instant motion appears untimely, but
the Court has generously addressed it as it is otherwise
deficient. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“The clerk may tax costs
on 14 days’ notice. On motion served within the next 7 days,
the court may review the clerk’s action.”) (emphasis added).
(Docket #95 at 2 n.1). The original motion to vacate was filed fourteen days
after costs were taxed, and the instant motion was submitted almost a month
after that. Neither motion is timely, and so the Court must deny the plaintiffs’
motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration
(Docket #96) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 9th day of February, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2