Saenz v. BERGE et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 18 Motion to file affidavit under seal. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 9/23/09. (elc),(ps)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------JER R Y SAENZ, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 9 -c v -1 8 5 -s lc v. G E R A L D BERGE, BRAD HOMPE, L T . BIGGERS, RENEA WALTZ and D O E S 1-100, D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------I dismissed this case in an order dated May 7, 2009, on the ground that the lim itations period on plaintiff's claim had expired. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendants had subjected him to cruel and unusual conditions of confinement in 2001 while he was incarcerated at what was then called the Supermax Correctional Institution (now the W isconsin Secure Program Facility). Because claims like plaintiff's alleging constitutional violations must be brought within six years of the date the plaintiff has notice of his injury, W udtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 1997), I concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Cancer Foundation, Inc. v. Cerberus Capital M anagem ent, LP, 559 F.3d 671, 674-75 (7th Cir. 2009) ("Dismissing a complaint as 1 u ntim ely at the pleading stage is . . . appropriate when the plaintiff pleads himself out of court by alleging facts sufficient to establish the complaint's tardiness.") Judgment was en tered the same day. Dkt. 16. M o re than four months later, plaintiff has filed what he calls a "reconsideration m o tio n ." He acknowledges that the motion cannot be considered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 (because he filed it more than 10 days after judgment was entered), but he asks the court to con sider his motion under Fed. R. Civ. 60(b)(6), which authorizes a district court to vacate a judgment for "any other reason that justifies relief." Plaintiff says that he was unable to c o m ply with the statute of limitations because he was seriously mentally ill "prior to, and subsequ ent to, the claims in this lawsuit." Plain tiff's motion has multiple problems. First, his allegation that he could not file a lawsuit sooner is contradicted by the fact that plaintiff did file a complaint on this issue in O ctober 2001. The complaint was rejected because plaintiff did not sign it and plaintiff failed to refile. Although plaintiff says that another prisoner assisted him with the com plaint, plaintiff does not suggest that the other prisoner filed the complaint without plaintiff's consent or that his mental illness was so serious that he was unable to sign the com plaint. Perhaps more important, plaintiff does not explain why he waited more than four m onths to seek reconsideration of the dismissal. A plaintiff may not use Rule 60 simply as 2 a way to circumvent the deadline under Rule 59. Although Rule 60(b)(6) does not place a p articu lar time limit on parties, "[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reason able time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). In determining whether the party's delay in bringing a motion under Rule 60 is "reasonable," a court must consider the reasons for the delay. Ingram v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 371 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 4). In this case, plaintiff had all the information he needed to file a motion for recon sideration as soon as judgment was entered. He does not suggest that any disability preven ted him from seeking relief at that time. Because defendant has failed to justify his delay in seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of his case, his motion for relief under Rule 60 must be denied. OR DER IT IS ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff Jerry Saenz's motion to file his affidavit under seal, dkt. #18, is G R A N T E D ; and 2 . Plaintiff's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 for relief from the judgment, dkt. #17, 3 is DENIED. E n tered this 23r d day of September, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict 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?