The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) Motion for relief from a void judgment (Doc. 7). On April 22, 2009, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing with prejudice his cause of action against Magistrate Judges Wilkerson*fn1 and Frazier, Judge Gilbert, Judges Posner, Rovner, and Williams as well as their clerks (Doc. 5). The Court found that the respective Judges were immune from suit for injunctive and declaratory relief for decisions they made in their official capacity as judges. The Court entered Judgment in favor of the Judges and against Plaintiff on April 23, 2009. On May 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Rule 59(e) and 60 Motion for Relief from a Void Judgment (Doc. 7). The Court having considered the arguments set out in the motion, DENIES Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) and 60 Motion for Relief.
Technically, a "motion to reconsider" does not exist under the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. The Seventh Circuit has held, however, that a motion challenging the merits of a district court order will automatically be considered as having been filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. See, e.g., Mares v. Bucby, 34 F.3d 533, 535 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 300 (7th Cir. 1992). Under these rulings, the date the motion was filed determined under what rule it would be analyzed. See Deutsch, 981 F.2d at 300. If the motion was served within 10 days of the rendition of the judgment/order, the motion fell under Rule 59(e); if it was served after that time, it fell under Rule 60(b). Id. (citations omitted). Most recently, however, the Seventh Circuit has clarified that although motions filed after 10 days of the rendition of the judgment are still analyzed under Rule 60(b), motions filed within 10 days of the rendition of the judgment can be analyzed under either rule depending upon the substance of the motion.
[W]hether a motion filed within ten days of the rendition of the judgment should be analyzed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) depends on the substance of the motion, not on the timing or label affixed to it. Therefore, the former approach - that, no matter what their substance, all post-judgment motions filed within 10 days of judgment would be construed as Rule 59(e) motions - no longer applies. In short, motions are to be analyzed according to their terms. When the substance and label of a post-judgment motion filed within 10 days of judgment are not in accord, district courts should evaluate it based on the reasons expressed by the movant. Neither the timing of the motion, nor its label..., is dispositive with respect to the appropriate characterization of the motion.
Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 493 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
Here, the Court filed its Order on April 22, 2009 and its Judgment on April 23, 2009 (Docs. 5 & 6). Plaintiff filed his motion to amend under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) on May 1, 2009 (Doc. 7). Since the motion was filed within ten days of the Order, the Court must look to the substance of the motion to determine whether the motion should be construed under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b).Obreicht, 517 F.3d at 493. Here, however, Plaintiff has filed his motion under both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b). Plaintiff argues that under Rule 59(e), the Court erred in dismissing his complaint because Plaintiff seeks mandamus relief against the Defendants and not money damages. Plaintiff further argues that mandamus is the appropriate method for compelling the federal judges to perform their duties. Similarly, Plaintiff argues that the Order should be amended under Rule 60(b) because his complaint seeks mandamus relief against the Defendants. Plaintiff brought his action pursuant to the mandamus statute. Plaintiff argues that the issue of judicial immunity as it relates to money damages is inapplicable to his mandamus suit.
A. FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(e)
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(e) motions serve a narrow purpose and must clearly establish a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence. Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986); Publishers Resource, Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publications, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1985). "The rule essentially enables a district court to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and the appellate courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings." Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of General Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The function of a motion to alter or amend a judgment is not to serve as a vehicle to re-litigate old matters or present the case under a new legal theory. Moro, 91 F.3d at 876 (citation omitted); King v. Cooke, 26 F.3d 720, 726 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1023 (1995).
Moreover, the purpose of such a motion "is not to give the moving party another 'bite of the apple' by permitting the arguing of issues and procedures that could and should have been raised prior to judgment." Yorke v. Citibank, N.A. (In re BNT Terminals, Inc.), 125 B.R. 963, 977 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (citations omitted). Rule 59(e) is not a procedural folly to be filed by a losing party who simply disagrees with the decision; otherwise, the Court would be inundated with motions from dissatisfied litigants. BNT Terminals, 125 B.R. at 977. The decision to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion is within the Court's discretion. See Prickett v. Prince, 207 F.3d 402, 407 (7th Cir. 2000); LB Credit Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1995).
Here, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in dismissing his complaint because the Court stated that Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, while Plaintiff's claim was actually brought under the mandamus statute, seeking mandamus relief. Plaintiff argues that a mandamus action is the proper mechanism for compelling the federal judges to perform their duty and therefore, the Court erred in dismissing his Complaint. Plaintiff also argues that a decision on the merits of Plaintiff's mandamus Complaint should have been separated from the issue regarding prepayment of fees.
The Court first notes that the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim as part of its duty to screen the complaint when filed by a Plaintiff seeking pauper status. In determining whether a Plaintiff can proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to carefully screen an indigent's Complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), the Court must screen any indigent's complaint (those filed by prisoners and non-prisoners alike) and dismiss the complaint if (a) the allegation of poverty is untrue, (b) the action is frivolous or malicious, (c) the action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (d) the action seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. Here the Court correctly determined that Plaintiff's Complaint failed to pass § 1915(e)(2) scrutiny as it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. While Plaintiff argues that it was ...