William Messner v. Anthony Calderone

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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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

No. 11-2099 Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
WILLIAM MESSNER, Northern District of Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellant, Eastern Division.

v. No. 07 C 893
Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.
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2011) (non-precedential disposition).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