UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
August 26, 2009
TIMOTHY DESHAZER, PLAINTIFF,
FEDERAL JUDGES, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
This cause is before the court on the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the court's November 12, 2008 Court Order dismissing the plaintiff's case on merit review for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [d/e 8]
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. Since Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend the judgment must be filed within ten business days of the entry of judgment, and it appears the plaintiff met this deadline, the court will consider this a Rule 59 motion. Hope v. United States, 43 F.3d 1140, 1143 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2558 (1995).
A Rule 59(e) motion "may only be granted if there has been a mistake of law or fact or new evidence has been discovered that is material and could not have been discovered previously." Figgie Int'l, Inc. v. Miller, 966 F.2d 1178, 1180 (7th cir. 1992).
The plaintiff's case was dismissed because he had named Federal Judges as defendants and he was asking the court to intervene in the appeal of his criminal conviction. The plaintiff's motion to reconsider is in letter form. The plaintiff asks the court not to dismiss his case and to allow him to participate in a telephone conference call. The plaintiff does not point to any mistake of law or fact or new evidence. The motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the November 12, 2008 Court Order is denied. [d/e 8].
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.