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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?