Tatum v. Fossum

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 3/16/2016 DENYING 15 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Robert Tatum at Waupun Correctional Institution) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ROBERT L. TATUM,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 15-CV-1395

ERIC FOSSUM,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER
The petitioner, Robert L. Tatum, filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus.

On February 8, 2016, the Court dismissed this action for

failure to state a claim. Judgment was entered on February 11, 2016. The
petitioner has filed a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
“Rule 59(e) allows a court to alter or amend a judgment only if the
petitioner can demonstrate a manifest error of law or present newly
discovered evidence.” Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir.
2008) (citing Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506, 511-12 (7th Cir.
2007)). “Motions under Rule 59(e) cannot be used to present evidence that
could have been presented before judgment was entered.” Id. 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).

In support of his motion for reconsideration, the petitioner contends
that the Court “substantially disregarded Tatum’s position and applicable
law” by “denying relief without relevant analysis.” Docket No. 15 at 1. In
his mandamus petition, the petitioner requested that the Court compel the
respondent, United States Supreme Court Deputy Clerk Erik Fossum to
immediately file his petition for writ of mandamus in the United States
Supreme Court. Contrary to the petitioner’s assertions, the Court set forth
Tatum’s position and determined that he did not make the necessary
showing to invoke mandamus jurisdiction. Docket No. 13 at 3-5.
The petitioner has not shown that the Court’s order of February 18,
2016, contains a manifest error of law or fact.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT the plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend
judgment (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 16th day of March, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

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

-2-