Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zachary A. Mcgraw, Jr v. City of Chicago

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION


January 24, 2012

ZACHARY A. MCGRAW, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Court's August 27, 2010 minute order ("Order") that dismissed this employment discrimination action by Zachary McGraw, Jr. ("McGraw") described the case as "the latest in a series of battles he has sought to wage against the City of Chicago." There is no need to recite the checkered history of the litigation, in which this Court had appointed a member of the District Court's trial bar to represent McGraw, only to find that counsel was unable to work with him and accordingly sought and obtained withdrawal from the representation. Suffice it to say that McGraw's effort in this case (like his earlier complaints that had been dismissed by other judges of this District Court) plainly flunked the "plausibility" standard established by the Supreme Court's Twombly-Iqbal caselaw.

Now, nearly a year and a half after dismissal of the action, McGraw has served notice that he plans to present on January 31 what he captions as "Motion--Reconsideration To reopen case for new trial case new discovered evidence." That motion comes far too late and must be rejected.

True enough, Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 60(b)(2) does permit a party to seek relief from a final judgment because of "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)."*fn1 But Rule 60(c)(1) not only generally requires any Rule 60(b) motion to be "made within a reasonable time" but also expressly sets a one year period of repose within which a motion of McGraw's type must be advanced.

Accordingly McGraw's proposed motion is denied as untimely. Hence he can save a bootless trip to the courthouse on January 31.*fn2


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.