Shelley v. Hepp et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying 34 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 10/27/09. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T H O M A S SHELLEY, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 9 - cv -6 9 - b b c v. R AN D AL L HEPP, TAMMY MAASSEN an d DR. REYNOLDS, BRET, D efendan ts. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Thomas Shelley, a prisoner at the Jackson Correctional Institution in Black R iver Falls, Wisconsin, is proceeding in this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on his claim that defendants Bret Reynolds, Randall Hepp and Tammy Maassen denied him adequate m edical care under the Eighth Amendment. In an August 13, 2009 order, I denied plaintiff's m o tio n for a preliminary injunction in which he sought to be re-prescribed his medications that were discontinued by defendant Reynolds. Now plaintiff has filed a motion under Fed. R . Civ. P. 59 for reconsideration of the August 13 order. T he purpose of a motion to amend judgment "is to bring the court's attention to new ly discovered evidence or to a manifest error of law or fact." Neal v. Newspaper

1

H o ldin gs, Inc., 349 F .3d 363, 368 (7th Cir. 2003). The motion must do more than merely reargu e the merits of the case. Id. (holding that the district court committed no abuse of discretion in denying motions to reconsider in which "the plaintiffs simply took the op po rtunity to reargue the merits of their cases"). The only argument plaintiff raises in his m otio n for reconsideration is one that I considered and rejected previously. Plaintiff argues th at defendant Reynolds was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by making th e diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder and discontinuing medications previously p rescrib ed to him by several other doctors. However, as I explained in the August 13, 2009 o rder, "mere differences of opinion among medical personnel regarding a patient's appropriate treatment do not give rise to deliberate indifference," Estate of Cole by Pardue v. Fromm, 94 F.3d 254, 261 (7th Cir. 1996), and nothing in the current record suggests that R eynolds's treatment decisions were a "substantial departure from accepted professional judgm ent, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible did not base th e decision on such a judgment." Id. at 261-62. Because plaintiff fails to raise any newly d isco vered evidence or manifest error of law or fact, I will deny his motion for r e c o n si d er a t i o n .

2

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Thomas Shelley's motion for reconsideration, dkt. # 34, is DENIED. E n tered this 27t h day of October, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3