Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holland v. Ceo Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

October 20, 2014

ROBERT HOLLAND and HOLLAND, REAL ESTATE LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
CEO COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Errors and Set Aside the Order of Dismissal Dated June 12, 2014 [ECF No. 13], filed on July 11, 2014. On June 12, 2014, the Court issued an Opinion and Order [ECF No. 11] dismissing the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The pro se Plaintiff, Robert Holland, asks the Court to reverse this decision and grant him the opportunity to amend his Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the Plaintiff's motion.

BACKGROUND

On June 12, 2014, the Court issued an Opinion and Order [ECF No. 11] dismissing the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice as being frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court also determined that any amendment would be futile. See Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that a court should not grant leave to amend "where the amendment would be futile" (quoting Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 796 (7th Cir. 2008))). Judgment was entered in this case on June 12, 2014, the same date as the Opinion and Order dismissing the Complaint.

The Plaintiff has filed numerous cases before this Court making similar allegations and the Court has issued a number of rulings with regard to those cases.[1] The Court incorporates by reference the Court's previous discussion of the history of the Plaintiff. (06/12/2014 Opinion and Order, ECF No. 11.) In addition to numerous cases being filed by the Plaintiff, the Court notes that many of these cases contain generally the same defendants and the same evidence, as alleged by the Plaintiff. The interconnected nature of many of these cases is further demonstrated by the fact that the Plaintiff has cited to other cases as providing the "predicate acts" for the conspiracies alleged in this case. ( See Opinion and Order 5-6, ECF No. 11.) The Court takes judicial notice that the Plaintiff has filed another case, Cause No. 2:14-CV-326-JD-PRC (filed on Sep. 8, 2014), in the time that has passed since the Court's last order in this case. The Civil Cover Sheet in that new case indicates that it is related to this case, as well as two others previously filed by the Plaintiff.

DISCUSSION

Judgment was entered in this case on June 12, 2014. The Plaintiff filed his motion on July 11, 2014, 29 days after the entry of judgment. The Plaintiff made his motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60, which the Court will address in turn.

Motions to alter or amend a judgment may be made pursuant to Rule 59(e), which provides that "[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." As previously noted, the Plaintiff filed his motion 29 days after the entry of the judgment. However, "[w]hen a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a)." Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d). Here, the Court's Opinion and Order was served on the Plaintiff by U.S. Mail pursuant to Rule 5(b)(2)(C). Thus, he is entitled to an additional 3 days pursuant to Rule 6(d), resulting in a timely motion under Rule 59.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.