Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dixon v. Hoogerwerf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


October 22, 2007

MARCUS DIXON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LEO HOOGERWERF, ET.AL., DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge

ORDER

This cause is before the court for consideration of the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's August 2, 2007 dismissal order. [d/e 7] A post-judgment motion seeking substantive relief from a judgment must be made pursuant to either Rule 59 or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The pro-se plaintiff's motion does not reference either rule. Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend the judgment must be filed within ten business days of the entry of judgment. Hope v. United States, 43 F.3d 1140, 1143 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2558 (1995). The plaintiff's did not meet this deadline. Therefore, the plaintiff's only basis for relief must be Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Charles v. Daley, 799 F.2d 343, 347 (7th Cir. 1986); Western Industries, Inc. v. Newcor Canada Limited, 709 F.2d 16, 17 (7th Cir. 1983).

A motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) "permits a party to seek relief from judgment on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud." American Federation of Grain Millers, Local 24 v. Cargill Inc., 15 F.3d 726, 728 (7th Cir. 1994). Such relief is warranted "only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances that create a substantial danger that the underlying judgment was unjust." Margoles v. Johns, 798 F.2d 1069, 1073 (7th Cir. 1986).

The plaintiff states that he was unaware of the court's order dismissing his case and since he is proceeding pro se, he asks the court to allow him to file an attached amended complaint clarifying his claims. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. [d/e 7] The court also notes that even if the plaintiff were allowed to file his amended complaint, he has still failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is denied. [d/e 7]

Entered this 22th day of October, 2007.

20071022

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.