Williams v. Neal et al

Filing 40

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 38 Motion to Reconsider by Pla Jerome Williams. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim against the only remaining Dfts Ron Neal and Howard Morton. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 4/17/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JEROME WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RON NEAL and HOWARD MORTON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-428 WL

OPINION AND ORDER
Jerome Williams, a pro se prisoner, filed a motion (ECF 38) objecting to this court’s order
(ECF 36) dividing his unrelated claims into three separate lawsuits. To the extent he is arguing the
court lacks the authority divide his claims, that is incorrect. The Seventh Circuit has clearly stated
that when faced with a pro se prisoner’s complaint containing unrelated claims, “[a] district judge
[can] solve the problem by severance (creating multiple suits that can be separately screened) . .
..” Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). To the extent he
is arguing the court should have allowed him to decide how to divide his claims, the court tried
four times (ECF 6, 9, 15, and 27) to get him to file a complaint containing related claims. To the
extent he is arguing his claims should not have been divided because they are related, he has
provided no explanation for how they are related beyond asking the court to reconsider his prior
submissions. However, “[r]econsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously
rejected arguments . . ..” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264,
1270 (7th Cir.1996). Therefore, Mr. Williams has provided no basis for reconsidering the order
separating his claims.

When the unrelated claims were divided into separate cases, what remained in this one was
Mr. Williams allegations that Superintendent Ron Neal and Executive Assistant Howard Morton
retaliated against him by denying the restoration of good time credits because he filed a lawsuit.
In a prior order (ECF 37) the court screened these claims and explained why the facts alleged did
not state a claim. Pursuant to Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013), Mr. Williams
was granted leave to file an amended complaint. In response, he filed (ECF 39) an exact copy of
his prior complaint (ECF 35) with a new signature date. Since the complaint has not changed,
neither has the analysis of it. Therefore, for the reasons previously explained (ECF 37), the claims
remaining in this case against Ron Neal and Howard Morton do not state a claim and this case will
be dismissed.
For these reasons, the motion to reconsider (ECF 38) is DENIED and this case is
DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim against the only remaining
defendants Ron Neal and Howard Morton.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: April 17, 2017
s/William C. Lee
William C. Lee, Judge
United States District Court

2