Glover v. Dickey et al
Filing
78
DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 11/19/14 granting 32 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 37 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 42 Motion for Order; denying as moot 61 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 64 Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for the completion of discovery is January 20, 2015, and plaintiffs response to defendants motion for summary judgment is due on or before February 23, 2015. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RICARDO GLOVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 14-CV-87
PSY. D. JONATHON DICKEY,
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
Defendant has filed a motion to amend his answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint
along with a proposed amended answer. Defendant asserts that he inadvertently answered
plaintiff’s March 18, 2014, amended complaint. However, plaintiff’s April 7, 2014, second
amended complaint (Docket 9) is the operative complaint in this action. This motion will be
granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s July 15, 2014, denying his
motion for independent evaluation. The court’s July 15, 2014, order states in relevant part:
Next, plaintiff has filed a Motion for Independent Evaluation on W hether
Lawful Custody and Authority was Conveyed to the W isconsin Department of
Corrections, its Agents, Defendant Jonathan Dickey and Others. He contends
that the W isconsin circuit court did not have personal and subject matter
jurisdiction to hear his criminal case, Racine County Case Number 89-CF-402.
In that case, plaintiff pled guilty to first-degree sexual assault and false
imprisonment with a dangerous weapon, and no contest to attempted firstdegree intentional homicide. The W isconsin court entered a judgment of
conviction on February 22, 1990. Glover was sentenced to 45 years
imprisonment. See State v. Glover, 168 W is. 2d 358 (Ct. App. 1992) (per
curiam). Plaintiff’s argument that the state court did not have jurisdiction in
1989 related to his criminal case is improper in this civil case. In any event,
as stated by defendant in his letter response to plaintiff’s motion, plaintiff has
already challenged the issue in both state and federal courts. Based on the
foregoing, his motion will be denied.
(Court’s Order of July 15, 2014, at 2.)
The second sentence of Rule 54(b) states that:
any order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities
of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of
the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the
entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the
parties’ rights and liabilities.
A district court will grant a motion for reconsideration when: (1) the court has patently
misunderstood a party; (2) the court has made a decision outside the adversarial issues
presented to the court by the parties; (3) the court has made an error not of reasoning but
of apprehension; (4) there has been a controlling or significant change in the law since the
submission of the issue to the court; or (5) there has been a controlling or significant change
in the facts since the submission of the issue to the court. Bank of W aunakee v. Rochester
Cheese Sales Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990).
In support of his motion for
reconsideration, plaintiff reiterates that his 1989 conviction is void. He further contends that
the W isconsin Department of Corrections and defendant Dickey do not have legal
custody/jurisdiction over him. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration restates arguments from
his original motion and does not demonstrate that the court’s July 15, 2014, order contains
an error. As such, the motion will be denied.
Related to his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff has filed a “Motion for Order
Directing Defendant to Prove to the Court that his Employer was Conveyed Lawful Custody
and Authority over Plaintiff.”
This motion is similar to plaintiff’s original motion for
independent evaluation in which he maintains that the W isconsin Department of Corrections
does not have lawful custody of him because his criminal conviction is invalid. I have already
addressed this issue and I will deny the motion.
2
Plaintiff has filed two motions for extension of time. In the first motion, filed October
6, 2014, he seeks an unspecified extension of time pending the outcome of the motions
addressed herein. In his second motion, filed October 7, 2014, plaintiff seeks an extension
of time to complete discovery and respond to defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff’s request for additional time is reasonable and defendant does not oppose the
request. Therefore, I will grant the latter motion and deny as moot the former motion.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion to amend/correct answer
(Docket # 32) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Docket # 37)
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for order (Docket # 42) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Docket # 61)
is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Docket # 64)
is GRANTED. The deadline for the completion of discovery is January 20, 2015, and
plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment is due on or before
February 23, 2015.
Dated at Milwaukee, W isconsin, this 19th day of November, 2014.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?