UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
August 26, 2009
JAMES TORREY, PLAINTIFF,
DUANE PRICE, 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 January 26, 2009 merit review order dismissing the plaintiff's case. [d/e 11]
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 motion was filed within this ten day time frame. Therefore, the court will consider this a motion pursuant to Rule 59.
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 complaint centered on a disciplinary ticket he received which lead to the loss of good time credits. The plaintiff's case was dismissed because it was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The plaintiff's motion is in letter form and asks the court not to dismiss his case without allowing him a chance to participate in a merit review hearing. The plaintiff also says he does intend to challenge the results of his disciplinary hearing.
The plaintiff has failed to state a basis for allowing his motion to reconsider. The court conducted a merit review based on the clear allegations in the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff wishes to challenge the results of his disciplinary hearing, he must do so before he files a lawsuit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the January 26, 2009 order dismissing his case is denied. [d//e 11]
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.