IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
February 6, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. TIMOTHY BELL #B-70669, PETITIONER,
JOE MATHY, ACTING WARDEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On January 14, 2009 this Court issued a memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") reviewing in detail, and ultimately dismissing, the 28 U.S.C. §2254 ("Section 2254") Petition by pro se plaintiff Timothy Bell ("Bell") that "challenges Bell's adjudication as a Sexually Violent Person following his unsuccessful pro se opposition to a petition for such an adjudication--opposition that extended beyond trial to an unsuccessful effort at an appeal" (Opinion at 1).*fn1 Now Bell has filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision, setting out a number of respects in which this Court had assertedly "errored."
Bell's current motion, which seeks to argue merits-related issues, does not come to grips with the legal ground that called for dismissal of much of his Petition: the independent and adequate state law grounds that had caused the Illinois courts to deny him relief. As for Bell's other arguments, they too do not support reconsideration in light of (1) the principles set out in such cases (cited and quoted in Opinion at 4) as Guest v. McCann, 474 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2007), Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019, 1025 (7th Cir. 2004) and O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) and in such cases (cited in Opinion at 5) as Johnson v. Loftus, 518 F.3d 453, 455-56 (7th Cir. 2008) and Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motors Sales, USA, Inc., 199 Ill.2d 325, 334, 770 N.E.2d 177, 184 (2002) and (2) the limited role properly accorded to motions for reconsideration, aptly summarized in Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983).
Accordingly, Bell's motion for reconsideration, which given its timing appears to call for treatment as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion but would also call for rejection if it qualified under Rule 59(e), is denied. This Court's decision, as set out in the Opinion, stands.