Schreiber v. Brown County Jail et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 10/11/2022 DENYING 9 Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Richard Joseph Schreiber at Brown County Jail)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RICHARD JOSEPH SCHREIBER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BROWN COUNTY JAIL, C.O. RHODES,
C.O. BAKER, CORPORAL
LEYENDECKER, THOMAS NELSON,
C.O. PETRASEK, O’CONNOR,
MCKASH, C.O. CIESLEWICZ, Z.
BERGH, LT. TIMERICK, LT. TRINKER,
LT. MICHEL, BROWN COUNTY
DETENTION FACILITY, and CAPTAIN,

Case No. 17-CV-1428-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.
1.

BACKGROUND AND POSTURE
On October 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against the

above-captioned defendants, alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
ECF No. 1. He claimed that Defendants stood by while he was “assaulted,”
“humiliated,” “starved,” “strongarmed,” and “emotionally and mentally
traumatized.” Id. Also on October 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. On October 23, 2017, the Court
ordered that Plaintiff pay $21.10 as an “initial partial filing fee in this
action.” ECF No. 5. Over the course of October and November, mail sent to
Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. On November 20, 2017, the Court
dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 6.
That order, sent to Plaintiff by mail, was also returned as undeliverable. At
no point during this time did Plaintiff provide the Court with an updated

Case 2:17-cv-01428-JPS Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 3 Document 10

address, and the Court did not hear from Plaintiff again for nearly three
years.
On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court inquiring as to
the status of his case. ECF No. 8. This was the first time the Court had
received anything from Plaintiff since the initial filing of his case. Therein,
he wrote that he had “contacted or reached out to the Federal Courthouse
here in Green Bay and was waiting for information . . . .” Id. He stated
further that he had been living in various states and “really had no
forwarding address as I was basically homeless.” Id. On September 6, 2022,
Plaintiff wrote again to the Court, requesting “to open this civil suit back
up.” ECF No. 9. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the
motion to reopen.
2.

LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows parties relief from

judgment, order, or proceeding based on a variety of reasons including
“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” or “any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1),(6). Moreover, relief
under this Rule is an “extraordinary remedy and is granted only in
exceptional circumstances.” Eskridge v. Cook County, 577 F.3d 806, 809 (7th
Cir. 2009) (internal citation omitted).
Plaintiff provides no compelling justification on any of these bases.
Plaintiff did not seek to apprise himself with this Court of the status of his
case until nearly three years after he filed his complaint and his motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He attests to having been out-of-state
and without a consistent mailing address, but he does not claim that he was
unable to contact the Court by some means following his departure from
Brown County Jail in Green Bay. He claims to have contacted the Federal
Page 2 of 3
Case 2:17-cv-01428-JPS Filed 10/11/22 Page 2 of 3 Document 10

Courthouse in Green Bay, on a date not specified, to inquire about his case,
and states that he was thereafter “waiting for information.” ECF No. 8 at 1.
“This is his civil action, and it [was] his responsibility to prosecute it.” Green
v. Wisconsin DOC, No. 16-CV-1059-JPS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32182, at *3
(E.D. Wis. Mar. 7, 2017). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his is an
exceptional circumstance warranting the extraordinary remedy provided
by Rule 60(b). Accordingly, the Court will deny his motion. The Court
notes, however, that the dismissal of Plaintiff’s case was without prejudice,
ECF No. 7, so Plaintiff is free to re-plead and re-file his case if he so chooses.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen his case, ECF No.
9, be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 11th day of October, 2022.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3
Case 2:17-cv-01428-JPS Filed 10/11/22 Page 3 of 3 Document 10