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.

Dobbey v. Illinois Dep't of Corrections

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


March 24, 2008

LESTER DOBBEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motions to reconsider (Docs. 7 and 8) an interlocutory order of the Court -- specifically, the Court's order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and for preliminary/permanent injunction. It is well-settled that a "Motion to Reconsider" does not exist under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A federal court may, however, reconsider an interlocutory order pursuant to its inherent powers. See United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 604-05 (3d Cir. 1973); accord Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1469 (4th Cir. 1991) ("Rule 60(b) [is] not available for relief from an interlocutory order. Rule 59 (e) is equally applicable only to a final judgment."). The Supreme Court has stated: "[I]f an interlocutory decree be involved, a rehearing may be sought at any time before final decree, provided due diligence be employed and a revision be otherwise consonant with equity." John Simmons Co. v. Grier Bros. Co., 258 U.S. 82, 90-91 (1922); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 60, Advisory Committee Note on 1946 Amendment to Subdivision (b) ("The addition of the qualifying word 'final' emphasizes the character of the judgments, orders or proceedings from which Rule 60(b) affords relief; and hence interlocutory judgments are not brought within the restrictions of the rule, but rather they are left subject to the complete power of the court rendering them to afford such relief from them as justice requires.").

In this case, Plaintiff asserts that the Court erred as a matter of law in denying his motions for appointment of counsel and for preliminary/permanent injunction. The Court has reviewed the record and remains convinced that its rulings denying Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel and for preliminary/permanent injunction were correct. Plaintiff's motions to reconsider (Docs. 7 and 8) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

G. Patrick Murphy United States District Judge

20080324

© 1992-2008 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.