Davis v. Douma et al
Filing
39
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 1/31/2017 DENYING 38 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Bruce Terrell Davis at New Lisbon Correctional Institution) (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BRUCE TERRELL DAVIS,
Petitioner,
Case No. 16-CV-20-JPS
v.
TIM DOUMA,
Respondent.
ORDER
On January 18, 2017, the Court ordered that the petition in this matter
be denied. (Docket #35 and #36). On January 25, 2017, the petitioner
submitted a motion to reconsider that order. (Docket #38).1 The petitioner
asserts that his motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(“FRCP”) 59(e). “A Rule 59(e) motion will be successful,” the Court of
Appeals holds, “only where the movant clearly establishes: (1) that the court
committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered
evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722
F.3d 939, 953 (7th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). FRCP 59(e) “certainly does
not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could
and should have been presented to the district court prior to the judgment.”
Bordelon v. Chi. Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000). Each
of the petitioner’s arguments fit this bill. The Oto court’s observations apply
here:
A “manifest error” is not demonstrated by the
disappointment of the losing party. It is the “wholesale
disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling
1
The motion was docketed on January 30, 2017, but it is dated January 25;
the Court will give the plaintiff the benefit of the document’s stated date.
precedent.” Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F.Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D.Ill.
1997). Contrary to this standard, Beverley’s motions merely
took umbrage with the court’s ruling and rehashed old
arguments. They did not demonstrate that there was a
disregard, misapplication or failure to recognize controlling
precedent. As such, they were properly rejected by the District
Court.
Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000). The
petitioner merely disagrees with the Court’s conclusion that his claim is
moot, advancing arguments he already made, or should have made, in his
briefing on the petition itself. He has failed to make a clear showing that the
Court committed a manifest error of law or fact or that new evidence
supports a contrary result. The motion for reconsideration must, therefore,
be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
(Docket #38) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 31st day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 2 of 2
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?