HASHIM, A-KINBO JIHAD-SURU v. BERGE, GERALD A.
Filing
41
ORDER denying 39 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 10/6/2014. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A-KINBO JIHAD-SURU HASHIM a/k/a JOHN
D. TIGGS, JR.; EZRA C. MARTIN, DEMETRIUS
L. ROBERTSON; DANIEL L. SMITH; RONALD E. JACKSON;
AL ROY CURTIS; DERRICK SANDERS; ERIC M.
WASHINGTON; DONALD C. LEE; MICHAEL S.
JOHNSON; JAMES PRICE; RUFUS LYNCH;
TONY EPPENGER; MICHAEL A. SCIORTINO;
ROBERT E. SALLIE; RAYNARD JACKSON;
CORNELIOUS MADDOX; AMOS T. CRAIG;
TIMOTHY REED; SAMMY J. GATES;
JONATHAN P. COLE; EZRA C. MARTIN, JR.;
RODOSVALDO POZO;
NORMAN C. GREEN, JR.; EUGENE CHERRY;
STANLEY FELTON; LAMONT BROWN; DENNIS JONES-EL,
GLENN TURNER; and ALPHONCY DANGERFIELD,
ORDER
01-C-314-C
Plaintiffs,
v.
WARDEN GERALD A. BERGE and
ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES E. DOYLE, JR.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se prisoner Raynard Jackson has filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
denying his motion to vacate the 2001 judgment in which I dismissed this case for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and assessed a “strike” to each of the
plaintiffs as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff alleged in his first motion that he had
never intended to be a plaintiff in this case, that another prisoner had forged his signature
1
on the complaint and that he did not find out that he had been included as a plaintiff until
recently when a paralegal at his prison informed him about it.
In an order dated September 2, 2014, dkt. #37, I denied Jackson’s motion because
he failed to show that he had been unaware of the lawsuit until now. In particular, I noted
that: (1) the court had received a trust fund account statement from Jackson for this case;
(2) the signature on the letter accompanying the trust fund account statement matched
Jackson’s signature on documents that he filed in Jackson v. Gerl, No. 07-cv-656-bbc (W.D.
Wis.); and (3) the court had sent Jackson several orders issued in this case shortly after it
was filed, which would have given him notice that he had been included in the lawsuit.
In his new motion, plaintiff makes a number of arguments, but none of them address
the court’s reasoning. First, Jackson says that another prisoner prepared his affidavit of
indigency in case no. 07-cv-656-bbc.
To the extent Jackson means to argue that the
signature on the affidavit of indigency is not his, that would not explain why the signature
in the letter accompanying the trust fund account statement in case no. 01-cv-314-bbc
matches the signatures on several documents attached to his complaint in case no. 07-cv656-bbc, such as Interview/Information Requests.
Second, plaintiff says that the trust fund account statement included in case no. 01cv-314-bbc was intended to be filed in Jones ‘El v. Berge, Case No. 00-cv-421-bbc, but that
makes no sense. The trust fund account statement was sent with a letter related to case no.
01-cv-314-bbc; there is no mention of case no. 00-cv-421-bbc. Further, there would have
been no reason for Jackson to send the court a trust fund account statement in case no. 00-
2
cv-421-bbc. Jackson was not a named plaintiff in that case, the court never requested a
statement from Jackson related to that case and by the time Jackson sent his statement to
the court (May 2001), case no. 00-cv-421-bbc was already proceeding as a class and was
represented by counsel.
Third, Jackson has submitted documents he received from the Wisconsin Department
of Justice, which he says show that he had “no strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) as of 2007
and 2012. However, those documents show only that plaintiff did not have three strikes at
the time. Dkt. #39-1 (“The Wisconsin Department of Justice has no records showing that
this offender has three or more of dismissals within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §
801.02(7)(d).”). The documents did not “itemize” each strike that plaintiff had. In any
event, in September 2001, this court sent Jackson a copy of the order dismissing the case
and issuing a strike to each plaintiff under § 1915(g), so he would have received notice of
the case and the strike then.
Finally, Jackson includes a question at the end of his motion regarding the type of
conditions that qualify as an “imminent danger” to a prisoner. However, federal courts may
not provide advice on substantive legal questions. Rather, courts are limited to resolving
disputed factual and legal questions in the context of a pending case. If Jackson believes he
is imminent danger, he should file a proposed complaint in which he alleges facts supporting
that belief.
3
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Raynard Jackson’s motion for reconsideration, dkt. #39, is
DENIED.
Entered this 6th day of October, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
4
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?