Snider v. Superintendent

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

BILL SNIDER, Petitioner,

v. CAUSE NO.: 3:16-CV-149-TLS

SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying T.R. 60 Motion [ECF No. 31], filed on October 12, 2023. Bill Snider, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed this motion asking the Court to reconsider the order denying his Rule 60 motion [ECF No. 30]. Snider requests relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), but that rule only applies to altering or amending a judgment. Because Snider is proceeding without a lawyer, the Court will construe his motion as being made pursuant to Rule 60(b). An order granting relief under Rule 60(b) is an “extraordinary” remedy reserved for “exceptional circumstances.” O’Brien v. Vill. of Lincolnshire, 955 F.3d 616, 629 (7th Cir. 2020). “Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments.” Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). Here, Snider raises nothing new and provides no basis for finding that the Court erred when it denied his Rule 60 motion. For these reasons, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Alter or Amend Order Denying T.R. 60 Motion [ECF No. 31]. SO ORDERED on October 13, 2023.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT