Szopinski v. Foster et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 7/24/2018 DENYING 8 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Kirk Szopinski at Waupun Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KIRK SZOPINSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
JENNIFER H. KACYON,

Case No. 18-CV-436-JPS-JPS

ORDER

Defendant.
On July 5, 2018, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint. (Docket #5).
It allowed Plaintiff to proceed against Defendant, a nurse, for withholding
water from him, allegedly for medical reasons. Id. at 6–8. The Court
dismissed other defendants because they merely enforced the medical
order to withhold water. Id. at 8. On July 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion
for reconsideration of the screening order, claiming that the other
defendants may have turned off his water by mistake, and so should remain
in the case. (Docket #6). The next day, the Court denied that motion on two
bases. (Docket #7). First, the allegations of the complaint remain unchanged,
which attributed the lack of water to Defendant’s medical order. Id. at 2.
Second, even if the complaint included the allegations about a mistake by
the other defendants, that would not support constitutional liability. Id.
On July 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration
of the Court’s screening order. (Docket #8). As the Court explained to him
in addressing his first such motion, reconsideration is an extremely limited
avenue to revisit a ruling. (Docket #7 at 1). The reconsideration process is
not to be used simply when the aggrieved party believes the Court is
wrong. Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000). It is also

not intended to offer a second bite at the apple, allowing a party to present
arguments that were available at an earlier time. See Frietsch v. Refco, Inc., 56
F.3d 825, 828 (7th Cir. 1995). All of the contentions in the second motion for
reconsideration were available to Plaintiff at the time he filed the first. His
motion will, therefore, be denied.
Additionally, the Court will not permit him to extend the screening
process indefinitely by filing repeated reconsideration motions. No further
reconsideration motions will be considered with respect to the July 5, 2018
screening order. Plaintiff remains free to amend his complaint in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to include any
additional allegations he desires. If filed, such an amended complaint
would be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration
(Docket #8) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 24th day of July, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

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

Page 2 of 2