clarifying that “the former approach-that, no matter what their substance, all post-judgment motions filed within [28] days of judgment would be considered as Rule 59(e) motions – no longer applies”
How later courts described this case
- clarifying that “the former approach-that, no matter what their substance, all post-judgment motions filed within [28] days of judgment would be considered as Rule 59(e) motions – no longer applies”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WALTER THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 22-cv-438-NJR
ROB JEFFREYS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Walter Thompson, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while at
Shawnee Correctional Center. Thompson originally filed his Complaint on behalf of
himself and several other individuals. Those individuals sought dismissal from the case,
leaving only Thompson. On April 27, 2022, the Court dismissed his Complaint because it
violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (Doc. 21, p. 4). His Complaint also violated the
rules of joinder because he tried to proceed on unrelated claims (Id. at p. 5). A number of
his proposed claims also failed to state a claim (Id.).
Thompson was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint. He asked for
additional time to amend his pleadings (Docs. 24-27). But instead of filing an Amended
Complaint, he filed the pending motion to reconsider (Doc. 28). He asks the Court to
reconsider its dismissal of the original Complaint as well as his request for counsel. He
goes through each count of his original Complaint explaining how he believes he did
state a claim for each alleged constitutional violation.
Thompson’s motion to reconsider is automatically considered as having been filed
pursuant to either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. See,
e.g., Mares v. Busby, 34 F.3d 533, 535 (7th Cir. 1994). “[W]hether a motion filed within [28]
days of the entry of 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.” Obriecht v.
Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 493 (7th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in the original) (citing Borrero v. City
of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 701-02 (7th Cir. 2006) (clarifying that “the former approach-that,
no matter what their substance, all post-judgment motions filed within [28] days of
judgment would be considered as Rule 59(e) motions – no longer applies”)).
Nevertheless, a motion to reconsider filed more than 28 days after entry of the challenged
order “automatically becomes a Rule 60(b) motion.” Hope v. United States, 43 F.3d 1140,
1143 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 301 (7th Cir. 1992)); see
also Talano v. N.W. Med. Faculty Found., Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2001).
Here, the Court dismissed Thompson’s Complaint on April 27, 2022, and
Thompson did not file his motion to reconsider until August 19, 2022. Thus, the motion
is filed 28 days after the Order and is construed automatically as a Rule 60(b) motion.
Rule 60(b) provides for relief from judgment for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Rule 60(b) relief is an extraordinary remedy
and is granted only in exceptional circumstances. McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d
319, 327 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Dickerson v. Board of Educ., 32 F.3d 1114, 1116 (7th Cir. 1994)).
Rule 60(b) allows a court “to address mistakes attributable to special circumstances and
not merely to erroneous applications of law.” Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of Gen. Motors
Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995). It is also not an appropriate vehicle for rehashing
old arguments or for presenting arguments that should have been raised before the court
made its decision. Russell, 51 F.3d at 749; Rutledge v. United States, 230 F.3d 1041, 1052 (7th
Cir. 2000).
Simply put, Thompson’s motion to reconsider fails to meet the standard of Rule
60(b). Instead, he rehashes allegations already raised in his original Complaint. He merely
restates allegations in his original Complaint and seeks to explain why each count should
have proceeded past merits review. But the problem with Thompson’s Complaint was
not that each count failed to state a claim (although the Court noted that some might not
state a claim); rather Thompson’s Complaint was dismissed because he tried to include
too many claims in one Complaint. His Complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. Rule 8(a) requires a complaint to set forth “a short and plain statement of
[Plaintiff’s claim(s)] showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Rule 8(d) requires “simple, concise, and direct” allegations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). The
purpose of these rules is to “give defendants fair notice of the claims against them and
the grounds for supporting the claims.” Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011)
(citation omitted); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
But Thompson’s Complaint was not concise. He sought to bring claims against any
individual at Shawnee that he saw without proper PPE. He attempted to sue
40 individuals for various alleged violations, including the infrastructure of the prison,
sanitation issues, conditions of cells, officials’ response to Covid-19, issues with water,
and various acts of retaliation. The Court noted that he could not bring unrelated claims
together in one lawsuit and that he would need to file an Amended Complaint that stated
only related claims. He fails to identify anything that would justify reconsideration under
Rule 60(b).
In the alternative, Thompson requests that the Court assign him counsel in order
to draft an Amended Complaint. But after reviewing his motion to reconsider, the Court
finds that he is clearly capable of explaining his claims in a legible and articulate manner.
The Court further finds him capable of paring down his allegations in order to submit an
Amended Complaint that does not violate Rule 8.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Thompson’s motion to reconsider (Doc. 28).
Thompson shall have until December 30, 2022, to submit an Amended Complaint.
Failure to file an Amended Complaint will result in the dismissal of his claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 29, 2022
Thee eeteg
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL |
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 4 of 4