Castillo-Lara v. King et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LYNDA M. CASTILLO-LARA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAISIE KING, AARON WISE, and
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-1274-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on a variety of filings by plaintiff Lynda Castillo-
Lara. In this case, Castillo-Lara asked the Court to restore her lost parental rights and to return
her children to her after a state court ordered otherwise. She also sought restitution and
damages for the defendants’ role in those state proceedings. In April 2025, the Court dismissed
her claims on a variety of grounds (Docs. 61 & 62). Now, more than six months later, Castillo-
Lara has filed a document captioned “Statement of Claims” (Doc. 66), and motions for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 67) and for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 68).
The Court construes her “Statement of Claims” to be a motion for relief from a judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Banks v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 750 F.3d
663, 666 (7th Cir. 2014). It is well settled that Rule 60(b) relief is an extraordinary remedy and
is granted only in exceptional circumstances. Kemp v. United States, 596 U.S. 528, 533 (2022);
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524, 535 (2005). The rule authorizes a Court to grant relief from
a judgment for the specific reasons listed in the rule but does not authorize action in response to
general pleas for relief. See Young v. Murphy, 161 F.R.D. 61, 62 (N.D. Ill. 1995). One of those
specific reasons is a “mistake,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), which includes a judge’s mistake of fact
Case 3:24-cv-01274-JPG Document 69 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
or law. Kemp, 596 U.S. at 533-34. However, a Rule 60(b) motion is not an appropriate vehicle
for rehashing old arguments or for presenting arguments that should have been raised before the
court made its decision. Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of Gen. Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749
(7th Cir. 1995); Rutledge v. United States, 230 F.3d 1041, 1052 (7th Cir. 2000).
Castillo-Lara’s “Statement of Claims” does not assert anything justifying the
extraordinary relief of vacating a judgment under Rule 60(b). She does not point to any
“mistake” of fact or law by the Court. Instead, she simply repeats the wrongs she alleged and
the relief she requested in her original filings with the Court. The Court finds no mistake in its
original ruling and therefore declines to disturb its final judgment. The proceedings in this case
are over, and there is nothing for which Castillo-Lara needs in forma pauperis status or counsel.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES her motions (Docs. 66, 67 & 68).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 20, 2025
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-01274-JPG Document 69 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>