Newson v. Lopez et al

Filing 88

ORDER signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 2/26/18 denying 86 Motion to for reconsideration. (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Marquis Newson) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MARQUIS D. NEWSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-C-1084

MICHAEL LOPEZ &
CHRISTINA MARSHALL,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff Marquis Newson filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that his civil rights were violated. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment and dismissed this case on February 8, 2018. Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) on the ground that the judgment was
based on a manifest error of law. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration will be denied.
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)). A manifest error is “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize
controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation
omitted). A plaintiff must “clearly establish” that he is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e).

Harrington v. City of Chi., 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Romo v. Gulf Stream Coach,
Inc., 250 F.3d 1119, 1122 n.3 (7th Cir. 2001)).
Plaintiff identifies no manifest error of law or fact in his motion to reconsider. Plaintiff argues
that the Court identified the controlling case as Illinois v. Carbanes, and that the correct name is
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). Plaintiff is correct that the case name is Illinois v.
Caballes; however, that is a typographical error, not a manifest error.1 Plaintiff then reargues his
original positions and raises several points of disagreement with the Court’s analysis. Plaintiff argues
that Caballes is distinguishable for several factual reasons; however, the Court rejected that
argument when it determined that Caballes controlled. Plaintiff argues that Kenny was given the
scent of drugs or that if Kenny found drugs when he should have been looking for firearms, then
Kenny did not know what he was doing. The Court previously rejected both arguments as meritless.
Plaintiff argues that Kenny expanded the scope of the search warrant and the police should not have
been allowed to open the bucket once Kenny alerted about it. The Court rejected this argument
because the search warrant allowed the police to search in locations where small items, like bullets,
may be located and the bucket was one such location. In sum, Plaintiff offers no argument of
manifest law or fact; rather, he only provides his disagreement with the Court’s analysis. Mere
disagreement with the Court is not sufficient to warrant reconsideration. See, e.g., Caisse Nationale
de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Reconsideration is not
an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments”); Pac. Emp’rs Ins. Co. v. Clean
Harbors Env’t Servs., Inc., No. 08-C-2180, 2011 WL 4442806, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2011) (“A
1

The Court notes that the proper legal citation was provided for Illinois v. Caballes in the
original order. The only error was a typographical error in the case name. The Court will issue a
revised order correcting the case name.
2

motion for reconsideration that merely expresses the movant’s disagreement with prior rulings results
in a waste of judicial resources”). In sum, Plaintiff has not established that the Court committed a
manifest error of law requiring reconsideration.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Newson’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 86)
is DENIED.
Dated this

26th

day of February, 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

3