Jackson v. Goodwin et al
| Clarence Jackson |
| Mark Goodwin, First Financial Bank and Davis and Delanois Law Firm |
| 2:2023cv02007 |
| January 10, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Colin Stirling Bruce |
| Eric I Long |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin S. Bruce on 3/6/2023. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration #10 of the court's Order #8 of February 21, 2023, dismissing Plaintiff's claim with prejudice on grounds of judicial immunity, non-cognizability of claims, and factual frivolousness and implausibility. "Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Publishers Resource, Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publications, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1985). "A motion for reconsideration would be appropriate where, for example, the court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the [c]ourt by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension." Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988). "A further basis for a motion to reconsider would be a controlling or significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the court." Quaker Alloy, 123 F.R.D. at 288. Such problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare. Quaker Alloy, 123 F.R.D. at 288; Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990). "This is because the courts orders are 'not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigants pleasure.'" Pruitt v. Personal Staffing Group, LLC, 2021 WL 197399, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2021), quoting Geraty v. Village of Antioch, 2015 WL 127917, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2015). A motion to reconsider is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion. Pruitt, 2021 WL 197399, at *1, quoting Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir. 1996). The court has read Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider and the attached documents. Neither the Motion nor the documents call into question the reasons underlying the courts dismissal of Plaintiff's case. Nor does Plaintiff's Motion satisfy the criteria for a motion to reconsider detailed above. Plaintiff is referred to the court's Order #8 of February 21, 2023. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration #10 is DENIED. (JMB)
|
| Filing 10 MOTION for Reconsideration re #8 Order by Plaintiff Clarence Jackson. Responses due by 3/17/2023 (Attachments: #1 Important facts)(JMB) |
| Filing 9 JUDGMENT entered. (BMG) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 2/21/2023. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis #2 is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint #5 is DISMISSED with prejudice. The case is terminated. See written Order.(BMG) (Main Document 8 replaced on 2/21/2023) (BMG).
|
| Filing 7 Supplemental to #5 Amended Complaint by Clarence Jackson. (JMB) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 2/9/2023. The court has reviewed Plaintiff's Letter #6 . It is not necessary for Plaintiff to refile the supplemental material from #4 . The clerk is directed to redocket Plaintiff's filings from #4 as a supplement to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint #5 . The court will consider that material along with Plaintiff's Amended Complaint #5 . (JMB)
|
| Filing 6 Letter from Plaintiff Jackson (JMB) |
| Filing 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Davis and Delanois Law Firm, First Financial Bank, Mark Goodwin, filed by Clarence Jackson.(JMB) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 1/30/2023. For the reasons stated in the court's text order of January 25, 2023, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Information #4 is DENIED. (JMB)
|
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin S. Bruce on 1-25-2023. On January 17, 2023, this court entered an Order #3 dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint #1 in this matter, instructing Plaintiff to file, within 21 days, an amended complaint that clearly and plainly states a cognizable claim to relief under federal law or the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Information to Complaint #4 is not an amended complaint. It is a collection of documents from proceedings in state court, but it is not an amended complaint. There is, currently, no operative complaint in this case. The court will not accept piecemeal amendments to a complaint...the Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any previous pleading. Medford v. Walt, 2018 WL 339292, *4 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2018). Before the court can accept any kind of supplemental material, Plaintiff must first file an amended complaint that addresses the issues raised in the courts Order #3 of January 17, 2023. That is, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that contains a short and plain statement of the claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff's amended complaint should be clear, intelligible, and should state his claims in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances, so as to give Defendants fair notice of the claims against them and the grounds supporting those claims. See Davis v. Anderson, 718 Fed.Appx. 420, 423-24 (7th Cir. Dec. 4, 2017), citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Failure to do so by February 8, 2023, will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice. (BMG)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Information to Complaint by Plaintiff Clarence Jackson. Responses due by 2/6/2023. (Attachments: #1 Attachment 1, #2 Attachment 2, #3 Attachment 3, #4 Attachment 4, #5 Attachment 5)(TC) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 1/17/2023. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff has 21 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint that addresses the issues identified by the Court. Failure to file an amended complaint within 21 days will result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. This case is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. See written order. (JMB)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Clarence Jackson. Responses due by 1/24/2023 (JMB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Davis and Delanois Law Firm, First Financial Bank, Mark Goodwin, filed by Clarence Jackson.(JMB) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
