Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Darrell Rogers's motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The court held that Rogers had not shown a manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence and reaffirmed that amendment of his complaint would be futile. The court had previously dismissed his federal claims without prejudice and declined jurisdiction over any state-law claims.
Holdings
- The court did not err. Given the thoroughness of the plaintiff's allegations, allowing amendment would be futile because he does not state a federal claim.
- No. The plaintiff's allegations did not establish that the defendants' actions were motivated by his protected First Amendment activity.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court's dismissal of the complaint without granting leave to amend constituted a manifest error of law.
- Whether the plaintiff stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (11)
- Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2008)(cited_by)
- Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2007)(cited_by)
- In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 1996)(cited_by)
- Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.2d 601 (7th Cir. 2000)(cited_by)
- Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 1063 (N.D. Ill. 1997)(cited_by)
- Whitfield v. Spiller, 76 F.4th 698 (7th Cir. 2023)(cited_by)
- Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2009)(cited_by)
- Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2011)(cited_by)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007)(cited_by)
- Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422 (7th Cir. 1996)(cited_by)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…