Parker v. Lash et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 1/31/2018 DENYING 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Antonio Lee Parker at Waupun Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ANTONIO LEE PARKER,

v.

Plaintiff,

C.O. LASH, BRIAN FOSTER,
WILLIAM POLLARD, P. A. KROLL,
LT. WALTER, CAPT. MARKIEWCZ,
DR. B, PAUL LUDVIGSON, TONY
MELI, JEMERY WESTRA, DONALD
STRAHOTA, KYLE K. TRITT, LT.
SCHNEIDER, D. JONES, ANNETTE
MILLER, MS. JOHNSON, CAPTAIN
TOMAS CORE, S. STOBB, JAMES
MUENCHOW, CAPTAIN RADTKE,
C.O. CLARK, SGT. BLAKE, SGT.
PRICE, JON LITSCHER, EDWARD
WALL, CINDY O’DONNELL, JAMES
R. SCHWOCHERT, CAPTAIN
OLSON, and JOHN DOES 1-4,

Case No. 16-CV-1231-JPS-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.
On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a three-sentence motion, devoid
of citation to any evidence or legal authority, asking for the second time that
the court permit him pay the remainder of his filing fee with funds from his
release account. (Docket #20); see also (Docket #18) (prior motion requesting
the same relief); (Docket #19) (order denying the prior motion). On January
22, 2018, the Court denied the motion, citing the reasons explained in its
prior order. (Docket #21). Three days later, Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration of that decision. (Docket #22).

Although Plaintiff’s motion is silent on the legal grounds for
reconsideration, the only applicable rule is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60. That Rule allows the Court to vacate a prior order based on, inter alia, a
mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud by a party, satisfaction of the
judgment, or “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Relief under Rule 60 is an “extraordinary remedy and is granted only in
exceptional circumstances.” Wickens v. Shell Oil Co., 620 F.3d 747, 759 (7th
Cir. 2010). The Court’s determination is constrained only by its sound
discretion. Venson v. Altamirano, 749 F.3d 641, 656 (7th Cir. 2014).
Rule 60 does not exist to give losing parties a second bite at the apple,
particularly when the evidence or argument they should have presented
was within their grasp at the opportune moment. See Buchanan v. Ill. Dep’t
of Human Servs., 15 F. App’x 366, 369 (7th Cir. 2001); Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v.
Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 391–92 (1993) (“Inadvertence,
ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually
constitute ‘excusable neglect.’”). Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration cites
case authority which was available to him prior to filing the original
motion. He nevertheless chose to present his original motion in an
exceedingly brief fashion. That motion was appropriately disposed and the
Court is not inclined to reconsider its ruling. Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration must therefore be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Docket
#22) be and the same is hereby DENIED.

Page 2 of 3

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 31st day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3