Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denies the plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment and request for an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1. The court concludes that the plaintiffs did not establish excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances, and that their proposed amended complaint would not have survived preliminary screening. The court also denies their motions to appeal in forma pauperis but grants their motion for electronic notice and service.
Holdings
- The filing of the notice of appeal did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction to decide the pending Rule 60(b) motion because Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) suspended the appeal as to an order disposing of a Rule 60 motion.
- Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(6). Their failure to meet the court-ordered deadline did not constitute excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
- The court denied the request for an indicative ruling because it denied the Rule 60(b) motion and found that plaintiffs did not raise a substantial issue.
- Plaintiffs were not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because their financial affidavit did not establish indigence and inability to pay the filing fee.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs were entitled to relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(6) based on alleged lack of notice, delayed mail service, excusable neglect, or extraordinary circumstances.
- Whether the district court retained jurisdiction to decide the Rule 60(b) motion after plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
- Whether the court should issue an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1.
- Whether plaintiffs could proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
- Whether plaintiffs were entitled to electronic notice and consent to electronic service.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (23)
- Mares v. Busby, 34 F.3d 533, 535 (7th Cir. 1994)(followed)
- Dickerson v. Board of Educ., 32 F.3d 1114 (7th Cir. 1994)(followed)
- Gonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 807 (7th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008)(followed)
- Daniels v. Hughes, 147 F.4th 777, 786 (7th Cir. 2025)(followed)
- BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 214 (2025)(followed)
- Bell v. Eastman Kodak Co., 214 F.3d 798, 801 (7th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 607 (7th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)(followed)
- Teen v. Hale, No. 18-CV-01473-JPG, 2021 WL 1736926, at *1 (S.D. Ill. May 3, 2021)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 23.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…