United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
June 22, 2015
MARC NORFLEET, Plaintiff,
VIPIN SHAH, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Marc Norfleet's motion to reconsider (Doc. 48) the Court's June 11, 2015, order (Doc. 47) adopting the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier recommending that the Court dismiss plaintiff Marc Norfleet's Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim but allow leave to amend certain counts.
"A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own... in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.'" Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988) (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 n. 8 (1983)); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) (providing a non-final order "may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities"). The decision whether to reconsider a previous ruling in the same case is governed by the law of the case doctrine. Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 466 F.3d 570, 571-72 (7th Cir. 2006). The law of the case is a discretionary doctrine that creates a presumption against reopening matters already decided in the same litigation and authorizes reconsideration only for a compelling reason such as a manifest error or a change in the law that reveals the prior ruling was erroneous. United States v. Harris, 531 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 2008); Minch v. City of Chicago, 486 F.3d 294, 301 (7th Cir. 2007).
Norfleet has presented no compelling reason to revisit the Court's prior rulings. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to reconsider (Doc. 48).
IT IS SO ORDERED.