IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 17, 2006
BRIAN JONES, PLAINTIFF,
ROGER E. WALKER, JR., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action is before the Court to rule on Plaintiff's two motions to alter or amend judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Docs. 19, 20). Such a motion may only be granted if movant shows there was mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered previously. Matter of Prince, 85 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 1996), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc denied, cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 608; Deutsch v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 983 F.2d 741 (7th Cir. 1993).
Upon review of the record, the Court remains persuaded that its ruling dismissing several claims and Defendants from this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 was correct.*fn1 Therefore, the instant motions to alter or amend judgment are DENIED.
Plaintiff also included an alternative request for leave to file an interlocutory appeal (Doc. 19).
When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order.
28 U.S.C.A. § 1292 (b).
The Court finds that the order in question (Doc. 17) does not involve a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for leave to file an interlocutory appeal is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge