Johnson et al v. Holder et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 6/24/13 denying 22 Hill's Motion for Reconsideration and motion for Order to Show Cause; denying 23 Johnson's Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiffs) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ZACHARY JOHNSON
and RUSSELL KEITH HILL,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 12-CV-01282

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On April 28, 2013, I screened plaintiffs’ complaint and dismissed this action;
judgment was entered the next day. Plaintiff Russell Keith Hill’s claims were dismissed
without prejudice for failure to pay his initial partial filing fee. Plaintiff’s Zachary Johnson’s
claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Now before me are motions filed by both
plaintiffs.
On May 13, 2013, the court received a document entitled motion to reinstate/show
cause. This motion purports to be on behalf of both plaintiffs, but it is only signed by Hill.
This motion complains once again about U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller’s order of
recusal. Hill insists that Judge Stadtmueller should have provided detailed reason for his
recusal. He also maintains that any decision I made in this case is legally frivolous and
invalid because the case should have remained before Judge Stadtmueller. Nothing in
Hill’s motion changes the fact that he did not pay his initial partial filing fee. Hill is not
entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), and he is not entitled to a
statement of reasons for a judge’s recusal.

On May 13, 2013, the court also received a motion for reconsideration pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) signed by Zachary Johnson. Johnson argues that
the court incorrectly focused in the screening order on the defendants rather than on the
true merits of the claim. He lists eleven claims that he believes I overlooked in the
complaint and maintains that I cannot dismiss the complaint until I make a merits
determination on each of the claims.
Rule 59(e) allows the court to alter or amend a judgment if (1) the movant can
demonstrate a manifest error of law or fact, (2) the movant presents newly discovered and
previously unavailable evidence, (3) reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest
injustice, or (4) an intervening change in the law undermines the validity of the judgment.
11 Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2810.1, at 125–27 (1995);
see also Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Rule 59(e) allows a party
to direct the district court’s attention to newly discovered material evidence or a manifest
error of law or fact, and enables the court to correct its own errors and thus avoid
unnecessary appellate procedures.”). Whether to grant a motion to amend a judgment “is
entrusted to the sound judgment of the district of the district court.” In re Prince, 85 F.3d
314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996).
The dismissal of Johnson’s complaint at screening was not a manifest error or law
or fact. The complaint contained no allegations of personal involvement against any
defendants other than Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, who is protected by judicial immunity. Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d
834, 838 (7th Cir. 2011). Therefore, the complaint had to be dismissed because liability

2

under § 1983 requires personal involvement. Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 778
(7th Cir. 2008).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Russell Keith Hill’s motion to reinstate
and motion for order to show cause (Docket #22) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Zachary Johnson’s motion for
reconsideration (Docket #23) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 24th day of June, 2013.
s/ Lynn Adelman
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

3