Betts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

MYLON S BETTS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:23-CV-408-CCB

JEFF WELLS, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Mylon S. Betts’s Motion to Reconsider. (ECF 83). Mr.

Betts and Defendants previously cross-moved for summary judgment. (ECF 61; ECF 67;

ECF 69). The Court granted summary judgment to Defendants and denied it to Mr.

Betts. (ECF 80). Mr. Betts now moves the Court to reconsider that decision. (ECF 83).

The Court declines to do so for the following reasons.

In his motion to reconsider, Mr. Betts makes three perfunctory arguments in

support of reconsideration: (1) violation of due process in the removal and seizure of

vehicles, (2) lack of proper notice and the opportunity to be heard, and (3) improper

application of qualified immunity. None avail.

First, Mr. Betts argues that Defendants violated his procedural due process rights

under Indiana law when they seized and removed his vehicles from his property. But

Mr. Betts did not raise this claim in his operative complaint. (See ECF 8 at 9; ECF 80 at

5). As the Court explained in its previous order, “summary judgment is generally far

too ‘late in the day to be adding new claims.’” (ECF 80 at 6 (quoting Auston v. Schubnell,

complaints at summary judgment, it is “rarely” appropriate to do so. Ollison v. Gossett,

136 F.4th 729, 740 (7th Cir. 2025) (quoting Schmees v. HC1.COM, Inc., 77 F.4th 483, 490

(7th Cir. 2023)). The Court did not permit such constructive amendment here. (ECF 80

at 6). Thus, Mr. Betts’s due process claim under Indiana state law cannot succeed. The

Court declines to reconsider its prior order on this ground.

Second, Mr. Betts argues that Defendants failed to provide him proper notice and

the opportunity to be heard as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. Again, Mr.

Betts did not raise this claim in his operative complaint. Thus, it was not properly

before the Court at summary judgment. The Court will not reconsider its prior order on

this basis for the same reasons discussed above.

Third, Mr. Betts argues that Defendants were not qualifiedly immune due to the

“egregious nature” of their constitutional violations. (ECF 83 at 3). Though the burden

rested on Mr. Betts to show that qualified immunity did not apply after Defendants

raised it in their motion for summary judgment, he offered no response in his briefing.

Nor does he make any argument here that Defendants’ conduct violated “clearly

established statutory or constitutional rights.” McAllister v. Price, 615 F.3d 877, 881 (7th

Cir. 2010). Perfunctory allegations of egregiousness are not enough. This argument fails.

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. Betts’s Motion to Reconsider. (ECF 83).

SO ORDERED on April 13, 2026.

/s/Cristal C. Brisco

CRISTAL C. BRISCO, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT