IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 19, 2005
KATHI COOPER, BETH HARRINGTON, AND MATTHEW HILLESHEIM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
THE IBM PERSONAL PENSION PLAN AND IBM CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: G. Patrick Murphy Chief United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Several motions are pending before the Court: a motion for reconsideration, a motion for recusal, and a motion to register for electronic filing. These motions were filed by objector James Leas.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain no provision for a motion to reconsider, but such motions are filed routinely. Because the motion was filed within 10 days of the entry of the challenged Order (Doc. 379), the Court construes it as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the moving party must present "newly discovered evidence" or point to "evidence in the record that clearly establishes a manifest error of law or fact." In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996); see also Navarro v. Fuji Heavy Indus., 117 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 1997) (and cases cited therein). Here, Mr. Leas has done neither; his motion merely rehashes arguments which the Court previously rejected. It does not present any evidence that was not previously available, and it cites to no law which establishes the Court's error.
Accordingly, the motion to reconsider (Doc. 382) is denied.
This case is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. There is nothing left for this Court to do, and recusal at this point in time would make no sense even if it was warranted, which it is not. The motion requesting recusal (Doc. 387) is denied.
Finally, there is likewise no point in allowing Mr. Leas electronic filing registration at this late date. Again, the case is on appeal, and it is time for Mr. Leas to stop filing motions in the district court. Moreover, the Court does not allow pro se litigants access to the electronic case filing system. Because he advised the Clerk that he would be acting as a pro se litigant and not as attorney in this case, Mr. Leas's request for an electronic case filing user name and password was denied. This motion (Doc. 394) is denied.
The pending motions (Docs. 382, 387, and 394) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.