Williams v. Smith et al
Filing
27
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 1/25/2017 DENYING 26 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Discovery Extension (Docket #24). (cc: all counsel, via mail to Corwin K. Williams at Green Bay Correctional Institution) (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CORWIN K. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-CV-442-JPS
v.
C.O. KOTKOSKY,
Defendant.
ORDER
On January 23, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of
the Court’s January 4, 2017 order denying him an extension of time related
to discovery. (Motion, Docket #26; Order, Docket #24). Though not cited in
the motion, this appears to be a request for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 60(b).
FRCP 60(b) offers relief from a court’s orders or judgments if a party
can show “the narrow grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable
neglect, newly discovered evidence, voidness, or ‘any other reason justifying
relief from the operation of the judgment.’” Tylon v. City of Chicago, 97
Fed.Appx. 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)).1 Such
relief “is an extraordinary remedy and is granted only in exceptional
circumstances.” Harrington v. City of Chicago, 443 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006).
The plaintiff does not argue that any of these grounds are present.
Upon the Court’s review, only two are arguably implicated. First is the
ground of newly discovered evidence. The plaintiff asserts that he is
investigating why his signature was not appended to his original motion, and
1
Tylon quotes the previous version of FRCP 60(b)(6), but the verbiage
change in 2007 was not intended to be substantive. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, Advisory
Committee Notes, 2007 Amendment.
alludes that it was torn off by prison officials. (Docket #26). The plaintiff
provides no evidence of this, however, and so the instant motion cannot be
granted on this basis.
Even if he could produce a signature page for the original motion, his
motion was denied for additional reasons. These include that his request
came far too late in light of the scheduling order that has been in place in this
matter since August 2016. (Docket #24 at 1). As with the original motion, the
instant motion fails to state why the plaintiff needs an extension of time,
other than a lack of legal experience. He does not, for instance, state that he
has been diligently pursuing discovery since August 2016 and is unable to
complete what pretrial tasks remain because of the discovery deadline (now
passed by almost one month). Finally, the plaintiff does not actually state the
length of extension he seeks. For all of these reasons, the Court’s ruling on the
original motion would not change even had it been properly signed.
The only other applicable provision is the “catch-all.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(6). The plaintiff asserts his disagreement with the Court’s orders on the
motion for a discovery extension and on his previous requests for
appointment of counsel. Id. As the Court has informed the plaintiff in prior
orders, simply asserting “that the…court’s underlying judgment was
wrong…is an impermissible use of Rule 60(b).” Tylon, 97 Fed.Appx. at 681.
The Court finds no exceptional circumstances upon which to grant the
extraordinary relief afforded by FRCP 60(b). Because neither relevant ground
provides a basis to grant the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, it must be
denied.
This is the plaintiff’s third motion for reconsideration in the previous
four months. See (Docket #19, #21, and #26). Motions for reconsideration are
not typical and should not be used as a quasi-appeal of each one of the
Page 2 of 3
Court’s orders. The Court instructs the plaintiff that if he wishes to file any
additional motions for reconsideration in this matter, he should carefully
consider whether his arguments have any basis in FRCP 60(b). If he believes
that they do, he should explicitly state each basis, and the reasons supporting
them, in the motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
(Docket #26) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 25th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?