Tatum v. Brooks, et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on 11/18/2022. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Tatum's motion for reconsideration of the screening order (ECF NO. 26 ) is DENIED. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(rcm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ROBERT L. TATUM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.22-CV-1040

DAVID BROOKS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

On September 28, 2022, the plaintiff, Robert L. Tatum, who is incarcerated
and representing himself, filed a motion to have the court reconsider the screening
order. (ECF No. 26.) This case was transferred from the Western District of Wisconsin
on September 9, 2022. (ECF No. 18.) Prior to transfer, Judge William M. Conley
entered a screening order, dismissing all the defendants except David Brooks and
John Walton, against whom Tatum was allowed to proceed on a First Amendment
retaliation claim. (ECF No. 7.)
Tatum now asks this court to reconsider Judge Conley’s order, asserting that
Judge Conley “mis-read claims and disregarded controlling cases.” (ECF No. 26 at 1.)
He takes issue that Judge Conley “failed to assume my facts as true” and wrongly
determined that many of the defendants actions were unintentional. (Id.)
Tatum cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 and Civil Local Rule 7 as the

basis for his motion. However, these rules do not contain a mechanism for a court to
reconsider a prior ruling. The only two procedural rules that allow for a court to
reconsider a previous decision are Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). Rule 59(e) allows a
party to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment. Rule60(b) allows a party to seek
relief from a final judgment under certain circumstances. Since the court has not
issued a judgment, neither of these rules apply. There are limited circumstances
where a court may reconsider a ruling while the case is ongoing, but where a party is
simply taking issue with the way the court evaluated and considered the allegations
is not one of them. See Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 244 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir.
2000) (holding that a motion that “merely took umbrage with the court’s ruling and
rehashed arguments” was properly rejected by the district court). Here, Tatum is
simply arguing with the court’s findings and application of law. He has demonstrated
no true error or misapplication that would warrant reconsideration of the screening
order. His motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Tatum’s motion for reconsideration of
the screening order (ECF NO. 26) is DENIED.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 18th day of November, 2022.
BY
BY THE
THE COURT:
______________________________
______
_ _______________________________
NANCY
JOSEPH
NANC
CY JOSE
SEP
SE
PH
H
United States Magistrate Judge
2