William Messner v. Anthony Calderone, et al, No. 11-2099 (7th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
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2 1 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 Submitted August 4, 2011 Decided August 23, 2011 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 11-2099 WILLIAM MESSNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 07 C 893 Virginia M. Kendall, Judge. v. ANTHONY CALDERONE, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Order Earlier this year we affirmed the district court s decision dismissing William Messner s suit, which contended that officers of the Village of Forest Park, Illinois, had violated the Constitution by declining to renew a business license after he refused to allow an inspection of his premises. Messner v. Calderone, No. 10-1816 (7th Cir. Feb. 9, 2011) (non-precedential disposition). We considered Messner s claims under both the equal protection clause and the due process clause. The former was unsupported, we held, and the latter had been forfeited by its omission from Messner s original This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). No. 11-2099 Page 2 complaint. We added that the district judge did not abuse her discretion by denying Messner s post-judgment request to amend his complaint to add a due process claim. After we issued our mandate, Messner filed in the district court a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). This motion constituted another attempt to amend the complaint to add a due process claim. The district court denied this motion initially in the mistaken belief that it lacked jurisdiction. In response to a motion for reconsideration, the judge concluded that the court had jurisdiction but denied the motion on the merits. Messner has appealed again. Rule 60(b) is not a means to relitigate contentions decided adversely to a litigant. Only extraordinary new developments justify reopening a lawsuit. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536 38 (2005). Messner is rehashing old arguments. His attempt to use Rule 60(b) to prolong a suit that has been resolved on appeal is frivolous, and he risks financial sanctions if he continues to refuse to accept defeat. Messner contends that the district judge should have recused herself as biased. That argument, too, is frivolous. The only ground that Messner gives is the fact that the district judge has ruled against him repeatedly. Adverse rulings do not demonstrate bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). 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.
