John Justice v. Town of Cicero

2
1
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
June 22, 2012
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 11-3876
Appeal from the United
JOHN C. JUSTICE, States District Court for the
Plaintiff-Appellant, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 10 C 5331
TOWN OF CICERO, ILLINOIS and LARRY DOMINICK, Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.
Town President,
Defendants-Appellees.
Order
Our earlier opinion concluded that Justice’s notice of appeal was timely
with respect to the district court’s order denying his motion for relief under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60, but not with respect to the district court’s original decision
dismissing the case. We directed Justice to file a memorandum explaining what
extraordinary circumstance, see Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), could
support relief under Rule 60.
Justice has filed a memorandum, but he did not address that question.
Instead he explained why he filed his post-judgment motion more than 28 days
after the district court’s decision. That subject is not relevant. The matter that
No. 11-3876 Page 2
Justice needed to address was whether extraordinary circumstances required the
district court to change its substantive decision dismissing the complaint.
As our earlier opinion explained, Justice filed and lost the same basic
claim before; ordinary principles of preclusion doomed this successive suit. The
district judge added that, even if recent legal developments permit new
litigation, Justice still loses on the merits. 827 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N.D. Ill. 2011). The
judge did not abuse his discretion in adhering to that decision in response to the
request for reconsideration. Justice has not even attempted to explain to this
court where the district judge erred, let alone what “extraordinary”
circumstances justify reopening the judgment. The order of the district court
denying the post-judgment motion for reconsideration therefore is
AFFIRMED.