Young v. Camp et al

Filing 151

ORDER. Plaintiff's "Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment" is DENIED 144 . Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED 149 150 . Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 2/29/2016. (ceg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER E. YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JASON BRADLEY, BART LIND, SEAN
FURLOW, MICHAEL CLARK, and
VIPIN K. SHAH,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-CV-553-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Currently before the Court is a “Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment” filed by
Plaintiff, Christopher E. Young, on February 3, 2016 (Doc. 144). Also before the Court are
two Motions for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (Docs. 149, 150). For the reasons stated
below, these motions are denied.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Christopher Young, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department
of Corrections, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges correctional officers at
Pinckneyville failed to protect him from inmate attacks, despite receiving adequate
warning, and these officers, as well as medical personnel, failed to provide him with
adequate medical care. Following the Court’s initial screening of the complaint pursuant

Page 1 of 5

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, as well as motions for summary judgment on the issue of
exhaustion, Plaintiff was permitted to proceed on two counts:
Count 1:

Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants
Bradley, Lind, Furlow, James, and Clark; and

Count 2:

Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need against Defendant Shah, Camp, and Hastings.

Defendants James, Camp, and Hastings were dismissed without prejudice on
March 19, 2015, for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. 113).
Defendants Bradley, Lind, Furlow, Clark, and Shah were dismissed with prejudice on
January 28, 2016 (Doc. 142). It appears from Plaintiff’s motion that he is only contesting
the order which dismissed Defendants Bradley, Lind, Furlow, Clark, and Shah (See Doc.
144).
On February 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 144). On the same day, Plaintiff also filed a
Notice of Appeal (Doc. 145). Plaintiff then filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis on
February 9, 2016, and February 11, 2016 (Docs. 149, 150).
DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Reconsider
As an initial matter, the Court must address its jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff’s
motion to reconsider filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Normally,
“a notice of appeal divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case
involved in the appeal.” May v. Sheahan, 226 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Griggs
v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). In a scenario such as this,
however, where a party prematurely files a notice of appeal before the Court has acted
Page 2 of 5

on a timely Rule 59 motion, the notice of appeal does not divest the Court of jurisdiction
to rule on the motion. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). The notice of appeal is, in effect,
suspended until the Rule 59 motion is disposed of. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).
Having established that this Court has jurisdiction to rule on the motion to
reconsider, the Court now moves on to address the merits of the motion. Rule 59(e)
permits a court to amend a judgment only if the movant demonstrates a manifest error
of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence. See, e.g., Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of
Am., 683 F.3d 805, 814 (7th Cir. 2012). “This rule enables the court to correct its own
errors and thus avoid unnecessary appellate procedures.” Id. (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted). The decision to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion is entrusted
to the “sound judgment” of the district court. Id.
Plaintiff did not present new evidence that was previously unavailable at the time
the Court dismissed his case. Instead, Plaintiff reiterates that he has an Eighth
Amendment claim against Defendants Bradley, Lind, Furlow, Clark, and Shah. Plaintiff
then proceeds to lay out the timeline in which Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment and Plaintiff responded. Plaintiff states that he has a “genuine issue in this
case for failure to protect, and deliberate indifference.” The motion is devoid of any
claim of error of law or fact and does not present any new evidence, meaning Plaintiff
fails to meet his burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
In conclusion, Plaintiff has not stated or demonstrated any grounds for relief
under Rule 59(e), and the Court remains persuaded that its ruling was correct.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (Doc. 144) is DENIED.

Page 3 of 5

B. Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis
As previously mentioned, Plaintiff filed his motion to reconsider and motion to
appeal on the same day, and several days later he filed two motions to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”)1. A federal court may permit a party to proceed on
appeal IFP without full pre-payment of fees provided the party is indigent and the
appeal is taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) & (3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3)(A).
The Court has no reason to doubt Plaintiff’s indigence. He is an inmate currently
incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center, and according to his sworn affidavit, he
has no cash, no money in any bank accounts, and does not own any real estate (Doc.
149). As of February 1, 2016, Plaintiff’s trust fund at the prison had a negative balance of
over seventy-five dollars (Doc. 149).
Despite Plaintiff’s clear indigence, however, the Court declines to grant his
motion to proceed IFP because his appeal is not taken in good faith. An appeal is taken
in “good faith” if it seeks review of any issue that is not clearly frivolous, meaning that a
reasonable person could suppose it to have at least some legal merit. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000). Defendants Lind, Clark, Furlow, and Bradley were
granted judgment as a matter a law because Plaintiff did not show that these defendants
knew of and disregarded any risk of harm facing him, which is required for an Eighth
Amendment claim for failure to protect. See Lewis v. Richards, 107 F.3d 549, 553 (7th Cir.
1997). The deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Shah was dismissed with
prejudice because Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with adequate evidence to

1

  One of these motions (Doc. 150) is actually an affidavit in support of a motion to proceed IFP,

but it was docketed as a separate motion.

Page 4 of 5

support this allegation. On appeal, Plaintiff does not identify any errors in the Court’s
recitation of the facts or the Court’s analysis (See Doc. 144). Because Plaintiff has not set
forth an arguable basis in either law or fact for his appeal, and there is nothing indicating
that his appeal has any legal merit, the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, the Court
certifies that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith, and his request to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Christopher Young’s “Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment” is
DENIED (Doc. 144). Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis
are also DENIED (Docs. 149, 150). Since Plaintiff has been denied pauper status, he must
immediately pay the full amount of the appellate filing and docketing fee of five
hundred and five dollars ($505.00) to the Clerk of Court in this District. Or he has thirty
days from the date of this Order to reapply to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for
leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 29, 2016
_Nancy J. Rosenstengel_____
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5