Johnson v. Symdon

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on 5/15/15 denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, mailed to petitioner) (djd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

PRIEST JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 14-CV-879

DENISE SYMDON,
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 24, 2014, Priest Johnson (“Johnson”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 24, 2015 I denied Johnson’s petition. (Docket # 16.)
Presently before me is Johnson’s motion for reconsideration, which I construe as a motion to alter
or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Taylor v. Wexford
Health Services, Inc., 465 Fed. Appx. 561, 562 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Ho v. Taflove, 648 F.3d 489, 495
nn. 4-5 (7th Cir. 2011) (finding the district court correctly deemed a motion for reconsideration to
be a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (rather than Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)) when filed less than
28 days after the entry of judgment).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party to move the court for reconsideration
of a judgment within 28 days following the entry of the judgment. A motion for reconsideration
serves a very limited purpose in federal civil litigation; it should be used only “to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co.,
827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting Keene Corp. v. Int’l Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656 (N.D.

Ill. 1982), aff’d 736 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1984)). “A ‘manifest error’ is not demonstrated by the
disappointment of the losing party. It is the ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to
recognize controlling precedent.’” Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000)
(quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F.Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)). Apart from manifest errors of
law, “reconsideration is not for rehashing previously rejected arguments.” Caisse Nationale de Credit
Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996). Whether to grant a motion for
reconsideration “is left to the discretion of the district court.” Id.
In his motion for reconsideration, Johnson does not present any newly discovered evidence.
Therefore, the question is whether the decision and order contained a “manifest error of law or fact.”
Johnson argues that the Court either misunderstood or overlooked the issues presented. (Docket #
18 at 1-2.) Because Johnson conceded that he procedurally defaulted his claims, at issue before me
was whether Johnson had shown that he satisfied one of the exceptions to procedural default. In
denying his petition, I found that Johnson failed to show cause for his procedural default because
he failed to show that his conditions of community supervision prevented him from avoiding
procedural default. Specifically, I noted that while the conditions were in place, Johnson was able
to request an extension of time from the court of appeals in his state habeas cases and articulate the
legal basis for his belief that the community supervision restrictions violated his rights under the First
Amendment. I further found that Johnson’s conditions of supervision did not prevent him from
appealing the circuit court’s order denying his motion to modify conditions because even without
access to the library during the relevant time period, given the fact that Johnson had already
researched and filed a brief on the same issue with the circuit court, that he could have, at the very
least, filed a brief with the court of appeals reiterating the arguments made before the circuit court.

-2-

Johnson argues that Wisconsin courts do not grant leniency in regards to procedural rules or
substantive law issues for pro se litigants and that he could not “have filed the same brief in the Court
of Appeals of Wisconsin” because “there are major [sic] different requirements that the petitioner
was not aware of as his access to any and all legal materials were denied to him by the respondent
and their agents.” (Docket # 18 at 4.) Johnson has not specifically articulated, however, any
procedural rules that he could not follow because of his conditions of community supervision.
Rather, he argues that he was prevented from citing relevant legal authority to support his case
because of the conditions in place.
Johnson is correct that although Wisconsin courts are more lenient with pro se pleadings, pro
se litigants must still cite the record and authorities to support their claims. See State v. Welsh, 2009
WI App 95, ¶ 11 n.3, 320 Wis. 2d 484, 769 N.W.2d 878 (unpublished). However, as stated in my
decision and order, in both his appeal of his state habeas petitions and in his motion to modify his
conditions of community supervision, Johnson was able to cite relevant legal authority. In his
motion to modify conditions of community supervision, Johnson cited case law that the circuit court
addressed in detail. Thus, Johnson still has not shown how his conditions of community supervision
prevented him from avoiding procedural default. In sum, Johnson has not shown that my decision
denying his petition contained a manifest error of law or fact. Johnson’s motion for reconsideration
is denied.

-3-

ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Docket # 18) is DENIED.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 15th day of May, 2015.

BY THE COURT
s/Nancy Joseph
NANCY JOSEPH
United States Magistrate Judge

-4-