United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge.
February 17, 2017, the Court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment and dismissed this action with
prejudice. (Docket #120 and #121). On February 28, 2017, the
plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that ruling,
styled a "motion to amend judgment." (Docket #122).
The defendants responded to the motion on March 20, 2017, and
the plaintiff replied on March 28, 2017. (Docket #125, #126,
plaintiff's motion invokes the standards applicable to
summary judgment proceedings and its argument is based on
those rules. (Docket #123). Those are not, however, the
standards which are applied to a motion for reconsideration.
The plaintiff does not cite the rules the Court must
consider, but only two apply, and neither supports the
plaintiff's request to amend the judgment.
Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 60(b) offers
relief from a court's orders or judgments if a party can
show "the narrow grounds of mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence,
voidness, or 'any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of the judgment.'" Tylon v. City of
Chicago, 97 F.App'x 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2004)
(quoting FRCP 60(b)(6)). Such relief "is an extraordinary
remedy and is granted only in exceptional
circumstances." Harrington v. City of Chicago,
443 F.3d 542. 546 (7th Cir. 2006).
motion merely asserts the plaintiff's disagreement with
the Court's conclusions. Simply asserting "that
the.. .court's underlying judgment was wrong.. .is an
impermissible use of Rule 60(b)." Tylon, 97
F.App'x at 681. Further, the plaintiff fails to address
any of the specific FRCP 60(b) grounds for relief. Banks
v. Chicago Bd. of Educ, 750 F.3d 663, 667 (7th Cir.
2014) ("The district court does not abuse its discretion
by denying a Rule 60(b) motion that is not based on one of
the specified grounds for relief."); Monzidelis v.
World's Finest Chocolate, Inc., 92 F.App'x 349,
353 (7th Cir. 2004) (FRCP 60(b) motion denied because the
movant "failed to even argue that mistake,
excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other
exceptional circumstances had undermined the legitimacy of
the prior judgment") (emphasis in
plaintiff's arguments were either raised in summary
judgment briefing and rejected by the Court, or should have
been raised at that time and were not. Additionally, FRCP
60(b) may not be used for "grounds for relief 'that
could not have been used to obtain a reversal by means of a
direct appeal, '" which is precisely what the
plaintiff attempts to do here. Banks, 750 F.3d at
667 (quoting Kiswani v. Phoenix Sec. Agency, Inc.,
584 F.3d 741, 743 (7th Cir. 2009)). He cites no extraordinary
circumstances warranting relief from the Court's
judgment, and the Court itself finds none upon which to grant
the extraordinary relief afforded by FRCP 60(b).
other potentially applicable rule is FRCP 59(e). See
Obreicht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 493-94 (7th Cir
2008). "A Rule 59(e) motion will be successful, "
the Court of Appeals holds, "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, 953 (7th Cir.
2013) (quotation omitted). FRCP 59(e) "certainly does
not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance
arguments that could and should have been presented to the
district court prior to the judgment." Bordelon v.
Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of TVs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th
Cir. 2000). As noted above, each of the plaintiff's
arguments fits this bill. The Oto court's
observations apply here:
A "manifest error" is not demonstrated by the
disappointment of the losing party. It is the "wholesale
disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize
controlling precedent." Sedrak v. Callahan, 987
F.Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D.I11. 1997). Contrary to this
standard, Beverley's motions merely took umbrage with the
court's ruling and rehashed old arguments. They did not
demonstrate that there was a disregard, misapplication or
failure to recognize controlling precedent. As such, they
were properly rejected by the District Court.
Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th
Cir. 2000). As explained in its order on summary judgment,
the Court's application of controlling precedent to the
undisputed facts led to dismissal of each of the
plaintiff's claims. Upon review, it detects no manifest
error in that analysis.
the plaintiff's motion does not merit relief under either
FRCP 60(b) or 59(e), and must therefore be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration (Docket #122) be and the same is
 Tylon quotes the previous version of
FRCP 60(b)(6), but the verbiage change in 2007 was not
intended to be substantive. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60, Advisory