Bonner v. Rozmarynoski et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 4/6/2018 DENYING 39 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Paul Bonner at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PAUL BONNER,
Plaintiff,

v.

TONIA ROZMARYNOSKI,
MICHAEL SNODGRASS, ZACHARY
BERGER, and STEVE BOST,

Case No. 17-CV-674-JPS-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.
On February 23, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and dismissed this action with prejudice. (Docket #37
and #38). On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of
that decision, styled as a motion to amend the Court’s judgment. (Docket
#39). Defendants responded to the motion on March 15, 2018, (Docket #40),
and Plaintiff has declined to file a reply within the time allotted, Civ. L. R.
7(c).
Plaintiff cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 59(e) as the
basis for his motion. “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. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th
Cir. 2000).

The thrust of Plaintiff’s motion is that summary judgment should
not have been granted to Defendant Steve Bost. (Docket #39). All of
Plaintiff’s arguments on this point could have, and should have, been
presented in his response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
Indeed, he made those arguments, albeit in a truncated form, in his
summary judgment response brief. See (Docket #30 at 2-3). Plaintiff barely
mentions the other defendants. See generally (Docket #39). 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
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. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000). As explained in
its order on summary judgment, the Court’s application of controlling
precedent to the undisputed facts led to dismissal of each of Plaintiff’s
claims. His motion for reconsideration is an impermissible attempt to get a
second bite at the summary judgment apple.
Though Plaintiff did not cite it, another rule of procedure could
apply here. See Obreicht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 493–94 (7th Cir 2008).
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

Page 2 of 3

Chicago, 97 F. App’x 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting FRCP 60(b)(6)). 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). Plaintiff’s motion does not merit relief under FRCP 60(b) because it
merely disagrees with the Court’s conclusions, rather than addressing any
of the specific issues listed by the Rule. Simply asserting “that the . . . court’s
underlying judgment was wrong . . . is an impermissible use of Rule 60(b).”
Tylon, 97 F. App’x at 681.
In sum, Plaintiff’s motion does not merit relief under either FRCP
59(e) or 60(b), and must therefore be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment
(Docket #39) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 6th day of April, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

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

Page 3 of 3