DALLAS, LAPONZO M. v. GAMBLE, JANE

Filing 17

ORDER denying plaintiff Laponza Dallas's motion for reconsideration, dkt. #24 (in case no. 00-cv-87-bbc) and dkt. #54 (in case no. 16-cv-720-bbc). Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/1/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAPONZO M. DALLAS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
00-C-0087-C
v.
JAN GAMBLE, Warden;
BILL McCREEDY (HSU)
STAFF; and SOCIAL
WORKER,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LAPONZA MONROE DALLAS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
16-cv-720-bbc
v.
THE COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE
and DAVID CLARKE,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Laponza Dallas has filed what he calls a “Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59,” which I construe as a motion for reconsideration of the order
transferring case no. 16-cv-720-bbc to the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

(In some

documents, plaintiff calls himself “Laponza” and in other documents he calls himself
1

“Laponzo.”) I transferred case no. 16-cv-720-bbc because plaintiff’s claim is that officials
at the Milwaukee County jail violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by refusing
to provide medical treatment for a stomach condition that he has. Because the events giving
rise to the lawsuit occurred in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the known defendants
reside there, transfer was required under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
In his motion, plaintiff says that case no. 16-cv-720-bbc should have remained in this
district because that case “arose from” 00-cv-87-bbc, a case that plaintiff filed in this district
in 2000. Plaintiff does not explain his argument clearly, but I understand his position to be
that venue is appropriate in the Western District of Wisconsin because case no. 00-cv-87bbc raised a similar issue. In particular, plaintiff alleged in case no. 00-cv-87-bbc that
officials at the Kettle Moraine Correctional Facility refused to provide treatment for an
unknown stomach condition.
Plaintiff’s argument fails because I cannot consider case no. 00-cv-87-bbc in deciding
the appropriate venue for case no. 16-cv-720-bbc. The question under the venue statute is
not whether a case raises an issue similar to one raised in another case filed years earlier in
that district. Rather, § 1391(b) required this court to consider the location of the parties
and events relevant to case no. 16-cv-720-bbc. It is undisputed that all the events relevant
to case no. 16-cv-720 occurred in the Easter District of Wisconsin and that all known parties
in that case reside in that district.
Case no. 00-cv-87-bbc has been closed for 17 years. That case related to different
prison officials at a different institution, so it has no bearing on venue in case no. 16-cv-720-

2

bbc.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Laponza Dallas’s motion for reconsideration, dkt.#24
(in case no .00-cv-87-bbc) and dkt. #54 (in case no. 16-cv-720-bbc), is DENIED.
Entered this 1st day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
__________________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3