Jackson v. Anderson et al

Filing 117

ORDER signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 9/10/2018 Denying 114 Motion to Alter Judgment. (cc: all counsel, via US Mail to Jackson) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LITTLETON EMMETT JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-C-34

SONYA L. ANDERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT

On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff Littleton Emmett Jackson filed a complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that various Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
need of a purportedly broken bone in his face and that several Defendants retaliated against him after
a dispute involving payment of a co-pay . ECF No. 1. On January 16, 2018, Defendants Sonya L.
Anderson, Nathan Bethel, Jolinda J. Waterman, and Cindy Griffin filed motions for summary
judgment, which this court granted. ECF Nos. 63, 70, 112. On August 29, 2018, the court entered
judgment and dismissed the case. ECF No. 113. Before the court is Jackson’s Rule 59(e) motion
to alter judgment.1 ECF No. 114. For the reasons set forth below, Jackson’s motion will be denied.
Whether to grant a Rule 59(e) motion is “entrusted to the sound judgment of the district
court.” In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996). A motion may be granted where “the movant
presents newly discovered evidence that was not previously available at the time of trial or if the
movant points to evidence in the record that clearly establishes a manifest error of law or fact.”

1

Jackson’s motion (ECF No. 114) does not challenge the court’s judgment regarding
Jackson’s retaliation claims. As a result, the court will not address the retaliation claims.

Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252–53 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Prince, 85 F.3d at 324).
A “manifest error” occurs when the district court wholly disregards, misapplies, or fails to recognize
controlling precedent. Burritt, 807 F.3d at 253. Rule 59(e) enables a court to “correct its own
errors and thus avoid unnecessary appellate procedures.” Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 683 F.3d
805, 813 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996)). But
the rule is “not appropriately used to advance arguments or theories that could and should have been
made before the district court rendered a judgment, or to present evidence that was available earlier.”
Miller, 683 F.3d at 813 (quoting LB Credit Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267
(7th Cir. 1995)).
After reviewing Jackson’s motion to alter judgment, the court finds that Jackson has failed
to point to evidence that clearly establishes a manifest error of law or fact. Jackson does not offer
new issues of law or fact that the court has not previously addressed. ECF No. 112. Rule 59(e)
does not allow a party to “advance arguments or theories that could or should have been made
before the district court rendered a judgment, or to present evidence that was available earlier,”
Miller, 683 F.3d at 813 (quoting LB Credit Corp., 49 F.3d at 1267), but that is what Jackson
attempts to do here. Indeed, Jackson’s motion acknowledges that “this time” he will use the
proposed findings of fact “instead of the declarations he used last time.” ECF No. 114. Because
Jackson has not presented new evidence not previously available at the time of trial or pointed to
evidence that clearly establishes a manifest error or law or fact, his motion is DENIED.
Dated this

10th

day of September, 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court
2