# Talley-Smith

> District Court, N.D. Indiana · December 10, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11220904

## Case

- **Full name:** Jordan Talley-Smith v. Kathleen Ann Sullivan, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Indiana
- **Decided:** December 10, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11220904

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION

JORDAN TALLEY-SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:25-CV-252-GSL-AZ

KATHLEEN ANN SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment, [DE 44], filed on November 10, 2025. For the following reasons, the Motion, [DE 44],
is DENIED.
Background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this lawsuit on June 5, 2025. [DE 1]. He then filed an
Amended Complaint at [DE 7] on July 30, 2025. Defendants filed their Motion to Stay Answering
Deadline and Screen Pro Se Complaint at [DE 33], which was granted. The Court screened and
ultimately dismissed Plaintiff’s pro se Amended Complaint. [DE 42]. Plaintiff now brings a
Motion to Reconsider, [DE 44]. Having reviewed both that Motion and the Court’s Order at [DE
42], the Court is ready to rule.
Legal Standard
Under Rule 59(e), a party may file a motion to reconsider within 28 days of entry of the
judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). However, “relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) are extraordinary
remedies reserved for the exceptional case …”. Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir.
2008). These types of motions “serve a limited function, to be used ‘where the Court has patently
misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court
by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.’” Davis v. Carmel Clay
Sch., 286 F.R.D. 411, 412 (S.D. Ind. 2012) (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales,
Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir.1990)). Specifically, “[a] Rule 59(e) motion will be successful

only where the movant clearly establishes ‘(1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or
fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.’” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co.
v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012)).
Discussion
In the instant Motion, Plaintiff, reasserting arguments previously made, argues that
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) was inappropriate here, where he is not proceeding in forma
pauperis. The Court disagrees. As discussed in the Court’s Order at [DE 42], district courts have
the power to screen complaints filed by all litigants, prisoners and non-prisoners alike, regardless
of fee status. Vandenboom v. Indoi Agency, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190639, at *1-2 (S.D. Ind. Oct.

18, 2022) (citing Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999)).
Moving to Plaintiff’s next argument, he believes the Court mischaracterized his claims as
“status-based” rather than constitutional, but the Court’s Order specifically called out each of the
constitutional claims that Plaintiff attempted to bring. [DE 42, Page 5-7]. Plaintiff next argues that
the Court dismissed his fourth amendment claims without addressing the record. [DE 44, Pages 3-
4]. Despite the fact that the only record Plaintiff provided this Court with was an unverified
transcript, the Court did in-fact discuss it. [DE 42 at 6]. Plaintiff also argues that his fourteenth
amendment claim for procedural due process was overlooked, however, the Court directs Plaintiff
to [DE 42 at 5-6], where that claim is addressed and reminds him that “[a] public official or
employee is entitled to quasi-judicial absolute immunity for all actions related to executing a
facially valid court order. Morris v. Miess, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24599, at *8 (W.D. Wis. Mar.
29, 2007) (citing Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1239 (7th Cir. 1986)). The
BMV employees are not liable for Plaintiff’s alleged procedural due process violations. Finally,

Plaintiff argues that his Complaint was dismissed without leave to amend, despite correctable
deficiencies, but as discussed in the Court’s Order, [DE 42], that’s not the case.
Conclusion
Plaintiff largely reasserts previously addressed arguments. For the foregoing reasons, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [DE 44].
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: December 10, 2025

/s/ GRETCHEN S. LUND
Judge
United States District Court

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11220904. Public record. Not legal advice.