Opinion
1:22-cv-00932-RLY-MG
07-14-2022
KEITH TURNER,, Plaintiff, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, Defendant.
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS
MARIO GARCIA, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Keith Turner's Motion for Electronic Notification Access, [Filing No. 10], Motion to Strike Damaging Misinformation from the Record, [Filing No. 12], Motion for Fair Case, [Filing No. 13], Motion for Reconsideration, [Filing No. 14], Motion to Stay Ruling on Motion to Reconsider, [Filing No. 15], and Emergency Motion to Rule, [Filing No. 17].
I. Plaintiff's Motion for Access to Electronically File
In Mr. Turner's Motion for Electronic Notification Access, [Filing No. 10], Mr. Turner requests permission from the Court to receive electronically filed documents from the Court and the Defendant. The Court has previously denied Mr. Turner's request for electronic notification. [Filing No. 9.] The Court does not use email addresses for service, except through its Case Management/Electronic Filing System. That system does not generate email notifications to pro se litigants. Thus, the Court's orders to Mr. Turner will always be mailed to his mailing address. Mr. Turner is reminded that he must notify the Court of any change in his mailing address. Plaintiff's request for electronic notification of the Court's orders is DENIED.
II. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike
Regarding Mr. Turner's Motion to Strike, [Filing No. 12], that motion is DENIED. The statement Mr. Turner alludes to in his motion is not a reference to Plaintiff himself, but a notice in a form order to those litigants who may be prisoners seeking leave to proceed without preparing the filing fee. Mr. Turner can be assured, however, that the Court acknowledges he is not an inmate for purposes of his claims.
III. Plaintiff's Motion for Fair Case
Mr. Turner's Motion for Fair Case, [Filing No. 13], reiterates his claims and requests compassion in this case. "Not only is the district court to view the pro se complaint with an understanding eye, but, while the court is not to become an advocate, it is incumbent on it to take appropriate measures to permit the adjudication of pro se claims on the merits, rather than to order their dismissal on technical grounds." Donald v. Cook County Sheriff's Dep't, 95 F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir. 1996). It is the "well-established duty of the trial court to ensure that the claims of a pro se litigant are given a fair and meaningful consideration." Id. (quoting Palmer v. City of Decatur, 814 F.2d 426, 428-29 (7th Cir. 1987)). Mr. Turner is assured his claims will be given fair and meaningful consideration. Plaintiff's Motion for Fair Case is DENIED as moot.
IV. Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider
Mr. Turner's Motion to Reconsider, [Filing No. 14], requests the Court reconsider it's dismissal of the Complaint via Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
Rule 60(b) authorizes relief from a court's judgment based on a variety of grounds, such as mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Rule 60(b)(6) adds a "catch-all" provision that allows relief for "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Rule 60(b)(6) may be used to order relief from judgment only in "extraordinary circumstances" or where the judgment will cause "extreme and undue hardship." See, e.g., DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266, 1272 (2nd Cir. 1994); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Flanders Elec. Motor Service, Inc., 131 F.3d 625, 628 (7th Cir. 1997). The failure to raise all available legal theories does not justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Provident Sav. Bank v. Popovich, 71 F.3d 696, 700 (7th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. 7108 West Grand Ave., Chicago, Ill., 15 F.3d 632, 634-35 (7th Cir. 1994).
The Court evaluated Mr. Turner's Complaint and found that under the facts presented it could not grant relief. [Filing No. 11 at 4.] However, the Court provided Mr. Turner leave to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies by July 7, 2022. Mr. Turner has since filed an Amended Complaint, [Filing No. 16]. Mr. Turner is reminded that by proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must screen every complaint filed, which includes his amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
V. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Ruling on Motion to Reconsider
As the Court has ruled on Mr. Turner's Motion to Reconsider, [Filing No. 15], his Motion to Stay is DENIED as moot.
VI. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Rule
Lastly, Mr. Turner's Emergency Motion, [Filing No. 17], requests the Court rule upon his various pending motions. The Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Rule is DENIED as moot.
VII. Conclusion
Having reviewed Plaintiff's motions, the Court rules as follows: (1) Motion for Electronic Notification Access, [10], is DENIED; (2) Motion to Strike Damaging Misinformation from the Record, [12] is DENIED; (3) Motion for Fair Case, [13], is DENIED as moot; (4) Motion for Reconsideration, [14], is DENIED; (5) Motion to Stay the Ruling on Motion to Reconsider, [15], is DENIED as moot; (6) Emergency Motion to Rule, [17], is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order and the Docket.