The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
LASANDRA NORMAN,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO.: 2:19-CV-365-TLS-JEM
NIPSCO and AMERICAN WATER,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Response to Order and Opinion Further
Pushing for Action Against Both Defendants [ECF No. 11], which the Court construes as a
motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Lasandra Norman, a Plaintiff proceeding without counsel, filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1]
against Defendants NIPSCO and American Water. She also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis [ECF No. 2]. On November 8, 2019, the Court denied the motion and dismissed the
Complaint without prejudice with leave to refile an amended complaint that cures the
deficiencies identified by the Court. On December 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Refile
Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 6] and an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 7]. Although Plaintiff
qualified financially for in forma pauperis status, on February 7, 2020, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order dismissing without prejudice the Amended Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff had not established diversity jurisdiction. Judgment was
entered the same date.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to file a motion to alter or amend a
judgment within 28 days after the judgment is entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). To prevail on a
Rule 59(e) motion, “a party must clearly establish (1) that the court committed a manifest error
or law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Cincinnati
Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 955 (7th Cir. 2013).
In the instant Response [ECF No. 11] to the Court’s February 7, 2020 ruling, Plaintiff
does not identify any manifest error of law or fact committed by the Court nor does she assert
that newly discovered evidence precluded the entry of judgment. Plaintiff does not address the
basis of the Court’s February 7, 2020 Opinion and Order dismissing this lawsuit, which is that
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Nor does Plaintiff offer any facts or law to argue that
this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Instead, Plaintiff offers reasons
that her claims are meritorious and asserts injustices at the hands of Defendants. Plaintiff has not
met her burden under Rule 59(e).
Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff’s Response to Order and Opinion Further Pushing for
Action Against Both Defendants [ECF No. 11] seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e), the Court DENIES the request. No further action will be taken by the Court.
SO ORDERED on June 23, 2020.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT