Cameron McKinney & Caron McKinney v. Sgt. Murray, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied Cameron and Caron McKinney’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the dismissal of their pro se civil-rights action. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to timely file an amended complaint and renewed in forma pauperis motion, failed to update their address, and did not demonstrate manifest error or newly discovered evidence. The court also denied their motion for electronic notice and service as moot.

Holdings

1. Rule 59(e) relief was unwarranted because Plaintiffs did not establish a manifest error of law or fact or newly discovered evidence. Filing was not complete when Plaintiffs mailed the documents; the court had to receive them by the deadline, and the documents were not received.
2. The dismissal with prejudice was not subject to alteration because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the court's order, failed to update their address, failed to submit a renewed in forma pauperis motion or pay the filing fee, and did not demonstrate that reconsideration was justified.
3. The proposed amended complaint would not have survived preliminary screening because it failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 and failed to cure the deficiencies identified in the prior order; dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) therefore would have remained appropriate.
4. The motion for electronic notice and service was denied as moot.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs established a manifest error of law or fact or newly discovered evidence warranting relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
2. Whether dismissal with prejudice for failure to file the required amended complaint and renewed in forma pauperis motion by the court-ordered deadline should be reconsidered because Plaintiffs allegedly mailed the documents before the deadline.
3. Whether the proposed amended complaint would have survived screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and complied with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10.
4. Whether Plaintiffs' motion for electronic notice and service should be granted.

Disposition

other