Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Beverly Williams’s motion to amend or reconsider a post-judgment order and her motion for sanctions and default judgment. The court held that the motion was untimely and presented no manifest error or newly discovered evidence, and that default judgment and sanctions were unwarranted because any service deficiency caused no prejudice. The court also stated that it would summarily deny further motions seeking to revive the plaintiff’s untimely appeal.
Holdings
- Rule 59(e) did not authorize the requested relief because the August 28 order was not a final judgment, and the plaintiff's request was in substance an untimely attempt to reconsider the earlier denial of an extension of time to appeal.
- Reconsideration was not warranted because the plaintiff presented no newly discovered evidence and did not show a manifest error of law or fact.
- The alleged service deficiency did not warrant sanctions, striking filings, or treating motions as unopposed because the plaintiff was not shown to have suffered prejudice.
- Default judgment was not appropriate because the defendant had not failed to answer or otherwise defend the case, and final judgment had already been entered in the defendant's favor before the alleged service deficiency.
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff could use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the district court's August 28, 2025 order denying leave to amend her motion for an extension of time to appeal.
- Whether the plaintiff demonstrated manifest error, newly discovered evidence, or manifest injustice warranting reconsideration of prior rulings concerning the extension of time to appeal, electronic filing, or the appellate filing fee.
- Whether alleged failure to serve filings warranted sanctions, striking docket filings, or treating motions as unopposed.
- Whether default judgment was available after the court had already entered judgment in favor of the defendant.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- Peterson v. Lindner, 765 F.2d 698, 704 (7th Cir. 1985)(followed)
- Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 700-02 (7th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Caisse Nationale de Credit v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir. 1996)(followed)
- Oto v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)(followed)
- Mohns v. BMO Harris Bank National Association, 395 Wis. 2d 421, 437-39 (Wis. 2021)(distinguished)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…