John Justice v. Town of Cicero, No. 11-3876 (7th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 5, 2012.
Download PDF
2 1 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. JOHN C. JUSTICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF CICERO, ILLINOIS and LARRY DOMINICK, Town President, Defendants-Appellees. No. 10 C 5331 Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge. 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
