United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
CHARLES E. CARTHAGE, JR., Plaintiff,
LARRY MALCOMSON, PHIL STEFFEN, DAVE POTEAT, and MIKE HORST, Defendants.
Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge
September 1, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment as to all of Plaintiff's claims, arguing that he
had not properly exhausted his prison administrative
remedies. (Docket #38). Plaintiff responded, but did so in an
incoherent fashion that was not in compliance with the
federal or local rules of civil procedure governing
summary-judgment practice. See (Docket #51 at 3-5);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Civ. L. R. 56(b)(2). As a result, the Court
determined that all of Defendants' proffered facts were
undisputed, and on those undisputed facts, the Court was
obliged to grant summary judgment to Defendants. See
(Docket #51 at 5-7).
November 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed two motions. The first
requests reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing
his case, and the second requests leave to amend his
complaint. (Docket #53, #54). For the reasons stated below,
the Court must deny both motions.
the Court cannot reconsider its dismissal order on the
grounds Plaintiff has identified. In his one-paragraph
motion, he contends that the Court misconstrued the nature of
his substantive claims in the case. (Docket #53 at 1). He
argues that he never meant to complain about his medical
treatment at Brown County Jail; instead, he wanted to show
that the officers' statements led to his transfer to
Dodge Correctional Institution, which he says violated his
due-process rights. Id. He then repeats his
allegations from his summary-judgment submissions that he
wrote “to everyone” about his alleged
mistreatment, which he believes constitutes exhaustion of his
administrative remedies. Id.
he cites no authority supporting his motion, two rules allow
a court to revisit a final judgment in civil cases. First,
Rule 59(e) empowers a court to alter or amend a judgment on
motion by a party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The party seeking
relief under this Rule must establish “a manifest error
of law or present newly discovered evidence.”
Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir.
2008). Whether to grant a motion to amend a judgment
“is entrusted to the sound judgment of the district
court, ” In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th
Cir. 1996), but the movant must first “clearly
establish” his right to relief, Romo v. Gulf Stream
Coach, Inc., 250 F.3d 1119, 1122 n.3 (7th Cir. 2001).
Rule 60 allows the Court to vacate a judgment based on,
inter alia, a mistake, newly discovered evidence,
fraud by a party, satisfaction of the judgment, or “any
other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(b). Relief under Rule 60 is an “extraordinary remedy
and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.”
Wickens v. Shell Oil Co., 620 F.3d 747, 759 (7th
Cir. 2010). The Court's determination is constrained only
by its sound discretion. Venson v. Altamirano, 749
F.3d 641, 656 (7th Cir. 2014).
Rule affords Plaintiff any relief here. Plaintiff points to
no newly discovered evidence supporting his claim that he
exhausted his administrative remedies. Instead, he simply
repeats his prior contentions, which the Court has already
addressed and rejected. See (Docket #51 at 5- 7).
Further, he makes no effort to explain his failure to
properly respond to Defendants' statement of material
facts, which was one of the central reasons his claims
failed. See Id. at 3-5. Finally, although Plaintiff
suggests an eleventh-hour amendment to his claims in this
case by shifting the focus to his institution transfer, he
neglects to realize that this very claim is proceeding in
another of Plaintiff's civil actions, Carthage v.
Radtke, Case No. 17-CV-636-JPS (E.D. Wis.). This action
has always been about alleged medical mistreatment at the
Brown County Jail, not Plaintiff's transfer. See
other motion, in which he seeks leave to amend his complaint
“to fix whatever the court thinks is wrong with [his]
complaint, ” is also without merit. (Docket #54). The
deadline for amending pleadings expired long ago, in April
2017. (Docket #23 at 1). Plaintiff offers no sound reasoning
to permit amendment of a complaint post-dismissal. Further,
based on the undisputed facts established in connection with
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, any amendment of
Plaintiff's complaint would be futile; he cannot plead
around his own failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies. Consequently, that motion must be denied, too.
See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration of the Court's order of October 18,
2017 (Docket #53) be and the same is hereby
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend his complaint (Docket #54) ...