WEINSCHENK v. DIXON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION CHARLES WEINSCHENK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:20-cv-02133-JPH-MPB ) DUSTIN DIXON, ) COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK, ) HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Plaintiff Charles Weinschenk filed a motion for reconsideration after the Court dismissed this case and entered final judgment on August 27, 2021. Dkt. 41; dkt. 42.1 For the reasons that follow, that motion is DENIED. Dkt. [43]. I. Motion for Reconsideration Mr. Weinschenk asserts that he seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(B)(1). Id. at 1. However, "a motion to alter or amend a judgment is deemed filed under Rule 59(e) . . . if the motion is filed within" 28 days after entry of the judgment. Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 699 (7th Cir. 2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). As he filed the motion 4 days after the entry of final judgment, dkt. 42, and asserts that "the Court erred as a matter of fact and law," the Court reviews his 1 Mr. Weinschenk has also recently made numerous filings in Weinschenk v. State of Indiana, No. 1:21-cv-01468-JPH-MJD, including a motion to reconsider and "supplemental complaints". Those filings are the subject of an order entered today in that case. [1] request under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). "To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment, a party must 'clearly establish' (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment." Blue v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006)). Granting reconsideration is not appropriate when a claimant "merely restates the arguments made" in previous motions. Anderson v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 759 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2014). Mr. Weinschenk realleges in his request for reconsideration that he suffered damages from acts of international terrorism related to the September 11, 2001, attacks as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. Dkt. 43 at 2 ¶ 11,16. He further states that the Defendants conspired with the United States to discriminate against him. Id. at 4 ¶ 17. The Court dismissed Mr. Weinschenk's complaint on the basis that its assertions were frivolous and insubstantial. In his consolidated motion for reconsideration, Mr. Weinschenk alleged no new facts nor cited any additional law that clearly establish a "manifest error of fact or law." Blue, 698 F.3d at 598 . II. Notices of Supplemental Complaint Apparently in an attempt to cure the defects in his original complaint, Mr. Weinschenk has filed five additional notices of supplemental complaint. dkts. 44; 45; 47; 48; 49. These supplemental complaints again fail to outline a coherent, nonfrivolous cause of action against any identifiable person. As such, [2] the Court declines to consider them. III. Future filings The complaint was dismissed and final judgment entered. Having considered the motion for reconsideration, the Court finds no basis to grant relief. Considering this, and the frivolous nature of recent filings, any future frivolous filings will be summarily denied. Fuery v. Chicago, 900 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir. 2018) (affirming the district court's exercise of its "inherent powers... to manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.'") (quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haegar, 137 8.Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017). IV. Conclusion Mr. Weinschenk's consolidated motion for reconsideration is DENIED, dkt. [43]. Mr. Weinschenk's motion to receive service via email is DENIED, dkt. [46], because pro se litigants are generally not permitted to receive service by email. S.D. Ind. L.R. 5-2(b)(1). SO ORDERED. Date: 10/4/2021 James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: CHARLES WEINSCHENK 20040 Wagon Trail Drive Noblesville, IN 46060 Bryan Findley INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL bfindley@cassiday.com Gustavo Angel Jimenez INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL gustavo.jimenez@atg.in.gov Donald B. Kite, Sr. don.kite@gmail.com Joseph D. McPike, II ZEIGLER COHEN & KOCH jmcpike@zcklaw.com