Toscano v. Wexford Health Sources et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, denying 63 MOTION for Reconsideration re 61 Memorandum & Order. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 1/30/2017. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RIGOBERTO TOSCANO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-216-JPG-SCW

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, DR.
SHAH and DR. ORMUNDSON,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Rigoberto Toscano’s motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 63) of the Court’s October 14, 2016, order (Doc. 61) denying his motion for
a preliminary injunction (Doc. 26).
“A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own . . . in any circumstance,
although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances
such as where the initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.’”
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988) (quoting Arizona v.
California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 n. 8 (1983)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (providing a non-final order “may
be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’
rights and liabilities”). The decision whether to reconsider a previous ruling in the same case is
governed by the law of the case doctrine. Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 466 F.3d 570,
571-72 (7th Cir. 2006). The law of the case is a discretionary doctrine that creates a presumption
against reopening matters already decided in the same litigation and authorizes reconsideration
only for a compelling reason such as a manifest error or a change in the law that reveals the prior
ruling was erroneous. United States v. Harris, 531 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 2008); Minch v. City

of Chicago, 486 F.3d 294, 301 (7th Cir. 2007).
Toscano argues that the Court erred in finding that defendant Dr. Shah did not enter the
picture with respect to Toscano’s bilateral inguinal hernias until early 2016, yet he points to no
evidence in his medical records that Dr. Shah examined him before that date. Toscano also
complains that he was not given a chance to rebut certain pieces of evidence used by the
defendants such as, for example, the Mayo Clinic website and Dr. Shah’s “expert” testimony, but
he has not explained how that would have shown Dr. Shah was deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs.
In sum, Toscano has not offered a compelling reason for the Court to change its prior
ruling. In fact, most of his arguments go his health condition at the relevant time – such as, for
example, the condition of his hernias, whether he was in pain, or what kind of pain he experienced
– rather than Dr. Shah’s actual knowledge of Toscano’s health status during his treatment, the
relevant issue in this Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference case.
For this reason, the Court DENIES Toscano’s motion to reconsider (Doc. 63).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 30, 2017
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2