SL v. Weichart et al

Filing 84

ORDER signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 12/12/18 denying 82 Motion for relief from judgment. (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Kevin E Sierra-Lopez) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

KEVIN E. SIERRA-LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-C-1480

DR. FATOKI, et al.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Kevin E. Sierra-Lopez filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
his civil rights were violated. On July 26, 2017, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, and the Clerk entered judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. Plaintiff now seeks
relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Motions
seeking relief from judgment must be brought within one year after the entry of judgment. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(c). The present motion is untimely because it was brought nearly a year and a half after
judgment was entered and must be denied on this basis alone. See Wesco Prods. Co. v. Alloy
Automotive Co., 880 F.2d 981, 985 (7th Cir. 1989) (“As the one year time limit is jurisdictional and
may not be extended in any event . . . we conclude that [the district court] lacked jurisdiction to
consider the merits” of the Rule 60 motion. (internal citation omitted)).
Even if the court were to consider the merits of the motion, Plaintiff’s motion would be
denied. Plaintiff maintains that the court should not have dismissed his claims with prejudice because
his recruited counsel was ineffective. But as the Seventh Circuit recently recognized, “there is no
right to recruited counsel in federal civil litigation . . . and without a right to recruited counsel, there

can be no right to effective recruited counsel.” Jackson v. Litscher, 742 F. App’x 146 (2018) (citing
Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014), then Stanciel v. Gramley, 267 F.3d 575,
580–81 (7th Cir. 2001)). Plaintiff has not offered any factual or legal argument that convinces the
court that its July 26, 2017 decision was in error. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from
judgment (ECF No. 82) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of December, 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2