Cannon v. Newport et al
Filing
9
DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 1/15/2016 DENYING 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to Plaintiff) (pwm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
BILLY CANNON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-cv-1397-pp
v.
DEAN NEWPORT, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. NO. 8)
______________________________________________________________________________
Pro se plaintiff Billy Cannon is a Wisconsin state prisoner. On December
28, 2015, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint because his claims were
barred by the statute of limitations. Dkt. No. 6.1 On January 11, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a “Notice of and Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 53.” Dkt. No. 8. As an initial matter, the court notes that Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54 does not provide a basis for parties to ask courts to reconsider their
decisions. Rule 54 describes the required content for judgments. Indeed, there
is no rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure entitled “Motions for
Reconsideration.” The rules that come closest are F.R.C.P. 59, which allows a
party to ask a court to alter or amend a judgment if certain conditions are met,
and F.R.C.P. 60, which allows a party to seek relief from a judgment or order
under certain conditons.
1
For purposes of this decision, the court will assume the reader’s familiarity
with that decision and will not repeat the factual background or analysis here.
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) serves a very limited purpose in civil
litigation. A court may alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) when
there is newly discovered evidence or where there has been a manifest error of
law or fact. Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006)
(citing Bordelon v. Chi. Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir.
2000)). Rule 59(e) requires that the movant “clearly establish” one of the
aforementioned grounds for relief. Id. (citing Romo v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.,
250 F.3d 1119, 1122 n.3 (7th Cir. 2001)).
The plaintiff argues that the court should reconsider its decision because
(1) U.S. District Court Judge Charles N. Clevert abused his discretion when he
dismissed the plaintiff’s August 30, 2013 complaint; and (2) the statute of
limitations does not bar the plaintiff’s claims because he did not discover that
his constitutional rights had been violated until June 21, 2013. Dkt. No. 1 at 1.
First, the plaintiff’s August 30, 2013 complaint is not before this court,
and the court has no authority to review Judge Clevert’s decision to dismiss
that complaint. The court notes, however, that the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals—which does have the authority to review Judge Clevert’s decision—
affirmed that decision on July 24, 2014. (Case No. 14-1381) (unpublished).
The court will not reconsider its decision on this basis.
Second, the plaintiff’s claims focus on the defendants’ alleged arrest of
the plaintiff without a warrant or probable cause, and their alleged unlawful
detention of the plaintiff. An injured party’s “cause of action accrues when the
plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of an injury and also knows or
2
reasonably should know that the injury was caused by the wrongful acts of
another.” Lofton v. General Motors Corp., 691 F.2d 514, 517 (7th Cir. 1982)
(citations omitted). The plaintiff’s causes of action accrued at the time he was
arrested and detained, because he reasonably should have known at that time
of his alleged injury. The plaintiff argues in his motion that he did not realize
that he had a fraudulent concealment claim until June 21, 2013. But he did
not make a fraudulent concealment claim in his complaint. In his complaint,
he alleged that in 2009, he was arrested without probable cause, held without
probable cause, and prosecuted without cause, as well as being denied his
Sixth Amendment right to counsel. All of these events occurred in 2009, and he
was aware in 2009 that they were going on. This is not a situation such as a
medical claim, where the plaintiff did not discover that a certain medication
had caused side effects until years after he took it.
Accordingly, the plaintiff has not stated a basis for the court to alter or
amend its ruling under Rule 59.
F.R.C.P. 60 allows a party to seek relief from a judgment (a) to correct
clerical errors, or (b) to correct a mistake, to address newly-discovered
evidence, to correct fraud, to correct a void judgment, or to take into account
the satisfaction of a judgment. None of these factors are present here, so the
plaintiff has not stated a basis for relief from the court’s order of dismissal
under Rule 60.
3
III.
CONCLUSION
The court ORDERS that the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt.
No. 8) is DENIED.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 15th day of January, 2016.
4
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?