Gill v. Aramark et al

Filing 108

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper on 11/19/2020 DENYING 101 plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (cc: all counsel and mailed to Charles Gill at Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
CHARLES B. GILL, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-540-pp

ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(DKT NO. 101)
______________________________________________________________________________
On March 31, 2020, the court granted summary judgment in the
defendants’ favor on exhaustion grounds, finding that the plaintiff had failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing this §1983 lawsuit
alleging violation of his First Amendment rights. Dkt. No. 99. The plaintiff
now asks the court to alter or amend that judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e). Dkt. No. 101. He argues that grievance number 18023, which he filed on January 24, 2018, demonstrates that he exhausted
his administrative remedies because he complained that he was being
provided only vegan meals. Dkt. No. 101 at 1; Dkt. No. 101-1.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) allows a party to file a motion to alter or amend a
judgment within twenty-eight days of the court entering judgment. The
plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration twenty-two days after the court
entered judgment, so it was timely. “Rule 59(e) allows a court to alter or
1

Case 2:18-cv-00540-PP Filed 11/19/20 Page 1 of 4 Document 108

amend a judgment only if the petitioner can demonstrate a manifest error of
law or present newly discovered evidence.” Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d
489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506,
(7th Cir. 2007)). Whether to grant a motion to amend judgment “is entrusted
to the sound judgment of the district court.” In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324
(7th Cir. 1996).
The plaintiff’s motion does not present newly discovered evidence.
Instead, he restates the argument from his summary judgment response that
grievance 18-023, which he wrote on January 24, 2018, demonstrates that he
exhausted his administrative remedies. Dkt. No. 101 at 1. He states, “Like I
said I asked for a Halal Diet but what I received was a Vegan Diet with Halal
meat 4 times a week.” Id.
Under Rule 59(e), the plaintiff is entitled to relief only if he can
demonstrate that the court’s ruling constituted a manifest error of law. A
“manifest error of law” “is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the
losing party. It is the ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to
recognize controlling precedent.’” Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.2d 601,
606 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 1063, 1069
(N.D. Ill. 1997)).
The plaintiff has not demonstrated that the court made a manifest
error of law or fact. The plaintiff states that “[e]veryone has taken [his] case
out of context.” Dkt. No. 106 at 5. He argues, “I wanted a Halal diet; I was
2

Case 2:18-cv-00540-PP Filed 11/19/20 Page 2 of 4 Document 108

given a vegan diet. I grieved the problem, and the problem was not fixed.” Id.
It is true, as the court acknowledged in its order granting summary
judgment, that the plaintiff did complain in grievance 18-023 that while he
had asked for an Islamic diet, on January 24, 2018 the kitchen sent him a
vegan diet. Dkt. No. 99 at 18, n.5. But as the court also noted, in February
2018, after the plaintiff submitted that grievance, the defendants attempted
to “fix” the problem by providing the plaintiff halal meat four times per week.
Id. at 19. As the court stated in its order, if the plaintiff felt that the solution
the defendants provided violated his rights, he should have filed another
grievance. Id. at 19-20.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendants admitted that between
February 14, 2018 and August 20, 2018, he was served 459 vegan meals.
Dkt. No. 106 at 5 (citing Dkt. No. 39-2 at 4). He ignores the fact that the
defendants also stated that during that period, he received approximately
“104 meal trays with halal meat added.” Dkt. No. 39-2 at 4. As the
defendants point out, the plaintiff did not file a grievance about the
frequency with which he was being provided halal meals. Dkt. No. 102 at 23. The defendants quote the court’s decision, in which it stated that there is
no evidence that the plaintiff ever complained about “the four-meal-per-week
solution.” Id. (quoting Dkt. No. 99 at 22).
The plaintiff appears to believe that by complaining about one vegan
meal and concluding that complaint by saying, “I would like a Halal diet,
3

Case 2:18-cv-00540-PP Filed 11/19/20 Page 3 of 4 Document 108

which is a Muslim/Islamic diet,” (dkt. no. 101-1), he put the prison staff on
notice that he wanted (and his faith required him to have) every single meal
he was served to include halal meat. He insists on this interpretation despite
the fact that over the six months when he was receiving four meals a week
that included halal meat, he did not notify prison staff that this solution did
not address his concerns. As the defendants argue, the plaintiff did not give
prison staff the opportunity to address what he now claims his complaint
was—his desire to have every meal be a halal meal.
The plaintiff did not exhaust his remedies because he did not give
prison staff notice that his request for a “Halal diet” was a request that every
meal contain halal meat. The court has no reason to change its ruling.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No.
101.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 19th day of November, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
Chief United States District Judge

4

Case 2:18-cv-00540-PP Filed 11/19/20 Page 4 of 4 Document 108