UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
July 3, 2008
JAMES NEUMAN, PLAINTIFF,
STATE OF ILLINOIS, CITY OF PEORIA, COUNTY OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE, PEORIA COUNTY COURTHOUSE, PEORIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, BRIAN NEMENOFF, KEVIN LYONS, WILLIAM ATKINS, LYNDEN D. SCHMIDT, KAREN MCNAUGHT, NADINE J. WICHERN, MIKE MCCOY, STEVE SETTINGSGAAD, TERRY SHORT, JIM LUDOLPH, LARRY RYAN, HORWITZ, HORWITZ AND ASSOCIATES, LTD., VALERIE C. BARICH, BRUCE FARREL DORN AND ASSOCIATES, ERIC THOMPSON, LINDA CHAPEK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff James Neuman's Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of this case. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Reconsideration [#25] is DENIED.
On January 8, 2008, Defendant County of Peoria filed a Notice of Removal of this matter. The Court ordered Neuman to file a "short and plain" statement of his claims because the Court could not discern his claims for relief from the fifty-four-page state court pleading.
On March 18, Neuman filed a Motion to Amend Complaint without attaching a proposed Amended Complaint. The Court granted this Motion and reminded Neuman that the Amended Complaint must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and must be served on all named parties. On April 8, Neuman filed a Motion to Amend Complaint, including a proposed Amended Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint"), which consisted of 153 pages and was substantially similar to the original Complaint.
On May 8, the Court held a hearing regarding the First Amended Complaint, two Motions to Strike (filed by Defendants Karen McNaught, Judge Brian Nemenoff, and the County of Peoria), and several other pending Motions. The Court provided Neuman an opportunity to explain in open Court the factual basis for his Complaint, which included the receipt of a "suspicious" package in the mail, the receipt of medical records of a third party allegedly in violation of HIPAA, and the damage to the brake lines of his car. The Court allowed Neuman one final attempt to amend the Complaint and warned Neuman that the Complaint must comply with Rule 8, must state how these three incidents violated the law, and must in some way connect these incidents to the named defendants.
On May 28, Neuman filed an Amended Complaint purporting to comply with the Court's Order (the "Second Amended Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint consisted of sixty pages and did not differ substantially from the original Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint did not state how the receipt of a suspicious package or damage to car brake lines violated his civil rights. Although not naming them as defendants, the Second Amended Complaint referenced incidents involving Judge McDade, Kallister, and Waters and related these incidents to the "conspiracy" of the named defendants.
On June 6, 2008, the Court dismissed with prejudice the Second Amended Complaint and terminated the case, finding that Neuman failed to comply with Court Orders, the Second Amended Complaint failed to comply with Rule 8, and the Second Amended Complaint was frivolous. Neuman now requests reconsideration of that Order.
The Court has reviewed the Motion for Reconsideration in its entirety. With the exception of his continued venting of anger and frustration with this Court and the legal process, Neuman makes no argument warranting reconsideration.
Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration [#25] is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to docket the Motion for Reconsideration as a Notice of Appeal in accordance with Neuman's request. (See Mot. at 10.)
ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2008.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.