# Chukwuani

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · June 24, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357222

## Case

- **Full name:** Okwudili Chukwuani v. City of Solon, Ohio, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** June 24, 2026
- **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/11357222

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

OKWUDILI CHUKWUANI, ) CASE NO.: 1:24-cv-2257
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN
)
v. )
)
CITY OF SOLON, OHIO, et al., ) OPINION AND ORDER
)
Defendants. )

Pro se Plaintiff Okwudili Chukwuani sued the City of Solon and his ex-wife, Vivian
Chukwuani, alleging each violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1, Complaint.) On August 11,
2025, the Court granted the City of Solon’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc.
25, Opinion and Order.) In the same Opinion and Order, the Court granted Ms. Chukwuani’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Id.) A copy of the Opinion and Order along with the
corresponding Judgment Entry were mailed to Plaintiff at his Winchester Drive address. (See
Docket Entry 8/11/2025 noting copy mailed to Plaintiff’s Winchester Drive address.)
On September 2, 2025, the City of Solon moved for dismissal with prejudice, arguing in
part that the magistrate judge’s probable cause determination in the state court proceeding
obviated any § 1983 claim as a matter of law and dismissal with prejudice was warranted. (Doc.
27.) A copy of the motion was mailed to Plaintiff at his Winchester Drive address. (Id. at 144
(Certificate of Service).)1 More than two months passed without any response. On November
12, 2025, the Court granted the motion as unopposed and stated the arguments presented in the
motion warranted dismissal with prejudice. (Doc. 28, Dismissal Order.) A copy was mailed to
Plaintiff at the Winchester Drive address. (See Docket Entry 11/12/2025 noting copy mailed to
Plaintiff’s Winchester Drive address.)

On November 20, 2025, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Granting Solon’s Request to Amend Judgment Entry to
Reflect a Dismissal with Prejudice. (Doc. 29.) He asserts he “was not notified by the clerk’s
office that there was a pending motion that requires [his] response after the opinion and
judgement was issued on August 11, 2025.” (Id. at 147.) Plaintiff goes on to say “[t]he only
notification Plaintiff got from the Clerk’s Office, after the opinion and judgement entry, was the
Judgement entry on November 12, 2025, which he received when he visited his old residence
last Saturday, November 15, 2025.” (Id.) Plaintiff does not address the merits of the Dismissal
Order, nor does he assert any legal basis for vacating the Dismissal Order by way of

reconsideration. Instead, Plaintiff reasserts he should be given electronic filing privileges in
order to respond to motions.2 (Id. at 147-48.) No other relief is requested.
The City of Solon challenges reconsideration, primarily arguing Plaintiff has not
demonstrated relief is warranted under Rule 60(b) for three reasons. (Doc. 30.) First, a copy of
the City of Solon’s motion for dismissal with prejudice was also emailed to Plaintiff. (Id. at
152.) Attorney Matthew T. Fitzsimmons declared under penalty of perjury a copy of the motion

1 For ease and consistency, record citations are to the electronically stamped CM/ECF document
and PageID# rather than any internal pagination.

2 Attached to the Motion for Reconsideration is an application for “Pro Se Litigant Registration
for Electronic Filing.” (Doc. 29-1.)
was emailed to Plaintiff. (Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 2.) The email did not return as “undeliverable.” (Id.)
A copy of the email Attorney Fitzsimmons sent Plaintiff is attached to the City’s response in
opposition. (Doc. 30-2.) Second, plaintiffs have an obligation to notify courts of address
changes, similar to one’s obligation to duly advise the postal service so important mail is
properly forwarded to a recipient’s new location. (Doc. 30 at 152 (citing Yeschick v. Mineta, 765

F.3d 622, 629-30 (6th Cir. 2012)).) This Chukwuani did not do. Finally, because the matter was
properly dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiff can present no meritorious challenge. (Doc. 30 at
153.) Plaintiff has not replied.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit motions for reconsideration after the
dismissal of an action. Plaintiff’s only means of relief are to seek an amendment of judgment
pursuant to Rule 59(e) or relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). See FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e);
FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b).
Plaintiff cites Rule 59(e) as the basis for his Motion for Reconsideration of the Order

Granting Solon’s Request to Amend Judgment Entry to Reflect a Dismissal with Prejudice.
(Doc. 29 at 147.) Rule 59(e) states that any “motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed
no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). If timely filed, a
district court may grant such relief only if the movant shows “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly
discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent
manifest injustice.” Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005). The party
seeking relief under Rule 59(e) bears the burden of establishing the grounds for such relief.
While Rule 59 permits alterations or amendments to judgments, “it ‘may not be used to relitigate
old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the
entry of judgment.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n. 5, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 171
L. Ed. 2d 570 (2008) (quoting 11 WRIGHT & MILLER’S FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
§ 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)); Morgan & Morgan v. Zoll & Kranz, LLC (In re E. Palestine Train
Derailment), 160 F.4th 751, 759 (6th Cir. 2025) (affirming denial of belated Rule 59(e) motion
because filing was publicly available and a copy was sent to an email address associated with

movant).
What is more, “‘[t]he substance of the motion, rather than its form, controls [the]
inquiry.’” Hobbs v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., No. 24-3763, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 28996, at *1
(6th Cir. Nov. 4, 2025) (dismissal of pro se motion to vacate) (quoting Brown v. Local 58, Int’l
Bd. Of Elec. Workers, 76 F.3d 762, 768 (6th Cir. 1996)).
Plaintiff’s Motion is not a Rule 59(e) motion. While styled as a Rule 59(e) motion to
alter or amend the Court’s Order dismissing his claims against the City of Solon with prejudice,
its contents reveal Plaintiff seeks electronic filing privileges. (See Doc. 29.) He makes a cursory
reference to manifest injustice, but that reference is limited to his lack of electronic access. (See

id. at 147.) Plaintiff does not meaningfully address the bases on which Rule 59(e) relief could be
granted, let alone present argument as to why such extraordinary relief is warranted here. (See
id.) Other than the caption, he makes no reference to the Dismissal Order. (Id.) To be sure, pro
se filings receive liberal construction, but the Court is not required to make Rule 59(e)-specific
arguments on Plaintiff’s behalf. This is not a Rule 59(e) motion, even by liberal construction
standards. But even if it was, it falls short of demonstrating any entitlement to such relief.
Plaintiff has not presented any argument demonstrating relief is available because of a clear error
of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or the need to
prevent a manifest injustice.3
Moving now to Plaintiff’s request for electronic filing privileges, courts have discretion
to grant such privileges pursuant to LR 5.1(c), which provides in pertinent part:
While parties and pro se litigants may register to receive “read only” electronic
filing accounts so they may access documents in the system and receive electronic
notice, typically only registered attorneys, as Officers of the Court, will be
permitted to file electronically. The Judicial Officer may, at his or her discretion,
grant a pro se litigant who demonstrates a willingness and capability to file
documents electronically permission to register to do so. Permission to file
electronically may be revoked at any time.
It is unclear whether Plaintiff took advantage of the opportunity to receive “read only”
electronic notifications. He certainly could have done so without judicial authorization. As for
permission to file electronically, the request is denied. As stated above, Plaintiff received an
emailed copy of the City of Solon’s Motion to Amend the Judgment Entry to Reflect a Dismissal
with Prejudice on September 2, 2025. (See Doc. 30 at 152; Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 2; Doc. 30-2.) He did
not respond or take any action. Given the present status of this case and Plaintiff’s failure to
timely respond to emailed motions, even if the response was to simply request clarification from
the Court or a copy from the Clerk of Court, the Court finds no basis on which to exercise its
discretion and grant electronic filing privileges.

3 Plaintiff’s motion was filed within 28 days of the Court’s amended Dismissal Order. The City
of Solon urges denial because the motion fails to meet the standards for Rule 60(b) relief, those
being “‘culpability – that is, whether the neglect was excusable; (2) any prejudice to the
opposing party; and (3) whether the party holds a meritorious underlying claim or defense.’”
(Doc. 30 at 151-52 (quoting Yeschick, 675 F.3d at 628).) Even if this was a Rule 60(b) motion,
or should be construed as such, Plaintiff still fails to demonstrate relief is warranted. At bottom,
the motion is a second effort to obtain electronic filing privileges, nothing more.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order
Granting Solon’s Request to Amend Judgment Entry to Reflect a Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc.
29) is DENIED. His request for electronic filing privileges is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 24, 2026 yf
BRIDGET MEE BRENNAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357222. Public record. Not legal advice.