Reed v. Columbia St Mary's Hospital

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 7/15/2014 DENYING 10 Motion to Set Aside Order of Dismissal. (cc: via US mail to Linda Reed) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LINDA REED,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-C-0330

COLUMBIA ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER
On July 14, 2014, pro se Plaintiff Linda Reed (“Reed”) filed a motion (ECF No.
10) pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to set aside this
Court’s Final Decision and Order and Judgment, entered on July 2, 2014, denying both
her petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on her action against Defendant
Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital on claims arising from her hospitalization in March 2012
and her motion for appointment of counsel for lack of jurisdiction, and dismissing the
action. (See ECF Nos. 8-9.) Reed maintains that as a pro se litigant she made an “honest
mistake” in filing a second action. She also argues the merits of her claims.
There is no indication that Reed filed her motion to circumvent the time limits for
an appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. See Mendez v. Republic Bank,
725 F.3d 651, 659 (7th Cir. 2013). In such cases, a district court may grant relief under
Rule 60(b)(1) to correct errors that might also be corrected on direct appeal. Id. at 660-61
(affirming district court's grant of Rule 60(b) relief where district judge realized she had
made a mistake that rendered the judgment incorrect and invited a party to file a Rule

60(b) motion; the party had an appeal pending and filed its Rule 60(b) motion just six days
after filing its timely notice of appeal). Nonetheless, Reed has not established that she is
entitled to relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1). Furthermore, even if Reed’s
motion were considered under Rule 59(e), which allows a court to alter or amend a
judgment only if the movant can establish a manifest error of law or can present newly
discovered evidence, Anderson v. Catholic Bishop of Chi., No. 13-1803,

F.3d

2014

WL 2959129, at *7 (7th Cir. July 2, 2014), she has not met the criteria for such relief.
Therefore, Reed’s motion to set aside the order of dismissal is denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
Reed’s motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
to set aside the order of dismissal (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 15th day of July, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-2-