BRASWELL v. COLLINS-DENNIS

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: January 17, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00680
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ANDRE V. BRASWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:24-cv-00680-JPH-CSW ) ALICIA COLLINS-DENNIS, ) DEBORAH OATS LIGHTFOOT, ) TANNIKA LIGHTFOOT PATTON, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On August 15, 2024, the Court entered final judgment, dismissing this case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker- Feldman doctrine. Dkts. 20, 21. On September 10, Plaintiff Andre Braswell filed a "Complaint and request for injunction," a "Motion to set aside default and restatement of federal question," and a "Motion for default judgment." Dkts. [22], [23], [24]. Defendant Alicia Collins-Dennis responded in opposition to these submissions. Dkts. 25, 26. The Court construes Mr. Braswell's submissions to be a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because he filed them within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment. See Krivak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2 F.4th 601, 604 (7th Cir. 2021) ("[R]egardless of what counsel called it, all substantive motions filed within the time period described by Rule 59(e) fall under that Rule regardless of the lingo associated with the post-judgment motion."). "Rule 59(e) allows a party to direct the district court's attention to newly discovered material evidence or a manifest error of law or fact, and enables the court to correct its own errors and thus avoid unnecessary appellate

procedures." Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996). A manifest error occurs when a district court commits a "wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent." Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 253 (7th Cir. 2015). The rule is not "a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures, and it certainly does not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to the judgment." Moro, 91 F.3d at 876. So, to prevail on his Rule 59(e) motion, Mr. Braswell must "clearly

establish" that "there is newly discovered evidence or that there has been a manifest error of law or fact." Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006). He has not done so. In his filings, Mr. Braswell does not point to any newly discovered evidence. See dkts. 22, 23, 24. Mr. Braswell also makes no argument for why there was a manifest error of law or fact when the Court dismissed this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker- Feldman doctrine. Id. Instead, Mr. Braswell's filings suggest that he is

rehashing jurisdictional arguments already offered before the case was dismissed. See dkt. 23 at 1 ("The Plaintiff (re)states for the record as he/they did in the original claim and the original amended claim first [filed] on May 24, 2024 and do restate the following."). And to the extent Mr. Braswell's motion constitutes a belated response to the Court's show cause order at dkt. 18, his motion is not "a vehicle for [him] to undo" his failure to timely respond. Moro, 91 F.3d at 876. Accordingly, Mr. Braswell's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Dkts. [22], [23], [24]. This case remains closed. SO ORDERED. Date: 1/17/2025 ands Pat tanlore James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: ANDRE V. BRASWELL 2816 N. Central Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46205 All electronically registered counsel