Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de68> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 9 of
9
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de68 RegisterActionDate "2019-10-09" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de68 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/9/2019. On 8/27/19, the Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint and entering judgment. On 9/30/19, more than 28 days later, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider 50 . On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed 52 , a signed, duplicate Motion to Reconsider as he had failed to sign the earlier filing. Plaintiff's Motions to Reconsider, both 50 and 52 , which would otherwise be viewed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 (e), are untimely and the Court does not have the authority to extend the 28-day time limit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2); Robinson v. Sweeny, 794 F.3d 782, 783 (7th Cir. 2015), "[plaintiff] missed the 28-day deadline for making a genuine Rule 59(e) motion and therefore could obtain no relief under that rule." The Court, therefore, views Plaintiff's Motion as a Rule 60 Motion for Relief from Judgment. A Rule 60 Motion may be filed within one year of judgment but must assert mistake, excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence, or fraud, etc. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 (b); Owens v. Blagojevich, No. 06-380, 2008 WL 4792707, at *2-3 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 29, 2008). Here, Plaintiff asserts that he should have been provided counsel and should have allowed him to obtain help from other detainees. The Court, of course, never prohibited Plaintiff from getting help from others, it only advised Plaintiff that he was not to allow other, non-lawyers, to sign and file motions on his behalf. Plaintiff claims, further, that he was unaware that, in addition to the deliberate indifference claim, he was proceeding on a retaliation claim. Plaintiff had, however, pled retaliation in his complaint and the Court identified the retaliation claim in the 8/27/19 merit review order 48 . In addition, Defendant addressed the retaliation claim in his motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff filed a response, offering at least some argument as to the retaliation issue. Here, the Court sees no mistake, fraud, excusable neglect or other basis for granting relief from judgment. Accordingly, 50 and 52 are DENIED. (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 10/09/2019)" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de68 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de68 OntologyLabel dispositive @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de68 OntologyLabel granting_motion_for_summary_judgment @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de68 OntologyLabel order @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de68 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de63 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de68 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de65 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de68 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04191_de67 @default.