Staffa v. Pollard et al

Filing 151

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 10/23/2015 DENYING 150 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Mark Staffa at Waupun Correctional Institution) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MARK P. STAFFA,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 13-CV-5

WILLIAM POLLARD, et al.,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER
The pro se plaintiff is a Wisconsin state prisoner. He filed this civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. On August 25, 2015, the Court granted the defendants’
motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered on August 25, 2015.
On August 31, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which
the Court addresses below.
In support of his motion, the plaintiff contends that the Court’s
summary judgment order omitted the fact that the defendants denied him
any medical treatment for more than eighteen months. He asserts that the
Court based its decision entirely on what the defendants did after they
caused him to him be exposed to and contract H-Pylori, Entrobacter, and
Staph. Lastly, the plaintiff charges that the Court denied him his “due
process rights of discovery under ‘HIPPA’ keeping medical evidence from

being introduced in an effort to protect the DOC and its employees from
being held liable for violating this plaintiff’s 8th Amendment rights.” (ECF
NO. 150 at 1.)
Altering or amending a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is
permissible when there is newly discovered evidence or where there has
been a manifest error of law or fact. Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433
F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Bordelon v. Chi. Sch. Reform Bd. of
Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000). A “manifest error” is a “wholesale
disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.”
Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation
omitted). Rule 59(e) motions are generally not vehicles to introduce new
evidence or advance arguments that could or should have been presented
to the district court prior to judgment. Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872,
876 (7th Cir. 1996); Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246,
251 (7th Cir. 1987). Whether to grant a motion to amend judgment “is
entrusted to the sound judgment of the district court.” In re Prince, 85
F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996).
The Court’s summary judgment order considered the plaintiff’s
arguments regarding his Eighth Amendment medical care claims. (See
ECF No. 148 at 27-39.) The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not
-2-

demonstrate that the Court’s order contains a manifest error of law or fact.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 150) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 23rd day of October, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-3-