Tyler v. Milwaukee Area Office

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 9/30/2014. 15 Plaintiff's MOTION for Recusal DENIED; 16 17 18 Plaintiff's MOTIONS for Relief from judgment DENIED. (cc: via US mail to Lidia Tyler)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KIDIA M. TYLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-C-955

MILWAUKEE AREA OFFICE,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER
A motion to recuse and three motions for relief from judgment are
pending in this action.

(ECF Nos. 15-18.)

The motions relate to this

Court’s order denying pro se Plaintiff Kidia M. Tyler’s (“Tyler”) request for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on her civil action against the
Milwaukee

Area

Office

of

the

Equal

Employment

Opportunities

Commission (“EEOC”) and dismissing the action with prejudice as
frivolous. (ECF No. 7.) Final judgment was entered. (ECF No. 8.)
Her motion for recusal relates to the Court’s rulings during this
action and those rulings do not provide a basis for recusal. See Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Tyler has now filed motions for
relief from judgment and a proposed amended complaint. Filed less than
28 days from the entry of judgment, her motions are Rule 59(e) motions.

Rule 59(e) allows a court to alter or amend a judgment only if the
petitioner can establish a manifest error of law or can present newly
discovered evidence. Anderson v. Catholic Bishop of Chi. 759 F.3d 645,
652-53 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

Tyler has not

established a basis for relief from judgment and her proposed amended
Complaint remains futile.

Therefore, Tyler’s motions for relief from

judgment are denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Tyler’s motion for recusal (ECF No. 15) is DENIED;
Tyler’s motions for relief from judgment (ECF Nos. 16-18) are
DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 30th day of September, 2014.

BY THE COURT:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-2-