Sims v. Keshena et al

Filing 126

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 1/13/2017 DENYING 125 Plaintiff's request for extension of post-judgment deadlines. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Kendale Sims at Waupun Correctional Institution)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KENDALE SIMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-CV-1249-JPS

DR. KESHENA, FOSTER, and
CAPTAIN KUSTER,
Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Waupun Correctional Institution, filed
a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his civil rights were
violated. (Docket #1). On December 28, 2016, the Court issued an order
granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing this
action in its entirety. (Docket #122). On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a short
letter stating that he has received the Court’s order but is “unable to review
[it] himself given he is in segregation and security staff has [sic] [the order].”
(Docket #125). Plaintiff asks that the Court “put things on hold” until he has
the opportunity to review the order and prepare a response or appeal. Id.
The Court will deny this request. Although he appears to seek a stay
of proceedings, the Court notes that because the matter has been finally
resolved and dismissed, the only actions remaining for Plaintiff to undertake
would be to seek relief from the judgment or to appeal. A motion to amend
or seek relief from the judgment would be made under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); id. 60(b). The deadlines for
motions made pursuant to those Rules cannot be extended by the Court. Id.
6(b)(2) (“A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d),
52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), and 60(b).”).

The 30-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal is set by Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). That deadline
may be extended on a showing of excusable neglect or good cause.
Id. 4(a)(5)(A). However, the Court does not find that good cause exists
warranting an extension of that deadline. Plaintiff complains that being
placed in segregation disables him from participating in this case, but he does
not explain why he was moved into segregation. Such a move is ordinarily
premised on the inmate’s misconduct. Absent a clear showing that his
placement into segregation was not of his own making, the Court cannot
grant an extension on that basis. Furthermore, it is not the practice of
Wisconsin Department of Corrections institutions to deny prisoners access
to legal mail, even when in segregation. Thus, the Court is not inclined to
take Plaintiff at his word to the extent he suggests that he has been denied
access to the Court’s orders.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for extension of postjudgment deadlines (Docket #125) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 13th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2