Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;4:16-cv-04032_de62> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04032_de62 RegisterActionDate "2019-09-17" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04032_de62 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on 9/17/2019. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider 42 asking the Court to reconsider its dismissal of Plaintiff's case for failure to update his address. Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to alter or amend a judgment if the movant can show a manifest error of law or present newly discovered evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008). Motions under this rule cannot be used to present evidence that could have been presented at the summary judgment stage. Id. Nor are such motions vehicles to advance arguments that could or should have been made before judgment entered. U.S. v. Resnick, 594 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) ("Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."). Plaintiff states in his motion that he sent a letter to the Court updating his address in one of his other cases. The letter in question lists only the caption for the other case, addresses issues solely related to that case, and does not mention or reference any other pending lawsuit. See 20D746A v. 211F2DC, No. 16-cv-4115, ECF No. 59 (C.D. Ill.) (letter dated Aug. 23, 2018). Plaintiff was notified of his duty to keep the Court apprised of his current address in the Courts Scheduling Order, 33 at 7, para. 24, and in the Court's Text Orders entered May 30, 2017 and October 1, 2018. Plaintiff indicates that he received the Court's Text Order directing him to update his address, but he made no effort to do so or to otherwise ensure that the Court in this case had the correct address prior to the Court's dismissal. The content of the letter Plaintiff sent in his other case does not permit an inference that Plaintiff intended to take any action or address any issue in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion 42 is denied. (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 09/17/2019)" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04032_de62 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04032_de62 hasJudgeReference SJ001510 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04032_de62 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04032_de47 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04032_de62 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04032_de61 @default.