Opinion
Case No. 01 C 50229
October 10, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On September 28, 2001, plaintiffs Winters et al. and plaintiff-intervenors Philip et al. (collectively referred to as "plaintiffs") filed a motion for leave to file a second-amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). On October 9, 2001, the court received separate responses to this motion by defendant-intervenor Tully and the League of United Latin American Citizens. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied because the case had already been decided on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings on September 28, 2001, and a final order, dismissing the case in its entirety, entered on October 1, 2001, all prior to plaintiffs presenting their motion to the court on October 3, 2001, under Local Rule 5.3. See Camp v. Gregory, 67 F.3d 1286, 1289-90 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding district court loses jurisdiction to entertain motion for leave to amend complaint once final judgment is entered unless plaintiff also moves for relief from judgment), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1244 (1996).
Perhaps recognizing that the proper course for a plaintiff seeking to amend his complaint once judgment has been entered is to first have the judgment reopened under either Rule 59(e) or 60(b), see Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merch. Serv., Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 784-85 (7th Cir. 1994), plaintiffs filed, on October 9, 2001, a motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. This motion has been noticed for presentment on October 17, 2001. To succeed in a Rule 59(e), the movant must bring to the district court's attention a manifest error of law or fact, or newly discovered evidence. See Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Tr., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir, 2000). In this case, plaintiffs claim the purpose of their Rule 59(e) motion is to raise "new allegations based upon newly discovered evidence." (Pl.'s Mot. to Amend J. ¶ 7) After examining plaintiffs' proposed second-amended complaint, however, it is clear the "newly discovered evidence" plaintiffs point to does not affect the court's decision on the issues already briefed and argued in the cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. Instead, the "new evidence" is used only for the purpose of adding new and separate claims to the complaint. This, in the court's opinion, does not warrant granting the Rule 59(e) motion.
For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint under Rule 15(a) is denied and plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) is also denied.