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.

Barrick v. City of Indianapolis

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

July 21, 2015

ROBERT BARRICK, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, et al, Defendants.

ENTRY DISCUSSING POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS

JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.

For the reasons explained in this Entry, the various post-judgment motions of plaintiff Robert Barrick will be denied.

Background

This action was closed through the entry of final judgment on December 19, 2014. The dismissal was with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The basis of the dismissal was this:

A finding of frivolousness is appropriate where the factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). That is the situation he-re. Although Mr. Barrick undoubtedly believes that there is a secret grand conspiracy to watch his every move through the use of advanced technology there are no facts upon which this conclusion could plausibly be reached.

A federal court is required to dismiss a complaint that is: "(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact, " Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989), and "a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton, 504 U.S. at 33.

A post-judgment motion for the preservation of evidence was denied. The plaintiff then filed a timely notice of appeal, which was docketed as No. 15-1146. The appeal was dismissed on February 11, 2015 pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Pending Motions

The following medley of post-judgment motions are pending and are addressed in this Entry:

Docket Item # Name Date Filed 39 Motion to alter final judgment or, in the May 26, 2015 alternative, motion for relief from judgment 45 Motion for temporary restraining order June 15, 2015 47 Motion in limine June 15, 2015 50 Motion for ruling on motion in limine July 6, 2015

Each of the motions noted above was filed by the plaintiff, Robert Barrick. As used in this Entry, the term "primary post-judgment motion" refers to the "motion to alter final judgment or, in the alternative, motion for relief from judgment" filed on May 26, 2015.

Discussion

A litigant subject to an adverse judgment and who seeks reconsideration by the district court of that adverse judgment may "file either a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)." Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, ...


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.