Moore v. Bennett et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 3/22/2010. (eds),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------R O D N E Y C. MOORE, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 9 -c v -3 6 1 -s lc 1 v. D A N E COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, D A N E COUNTY COURTHOUSE, H O N O R A BL E JUDGE STEVEN EBERT an d ERIC OCELOTT MONTES (Clerk), D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------R O D N E Y C. MOORE, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 9 -c v -3 6 3 -s lc v. G R ET CH EN HAYWARD, STATE OF WISCONSIN, D A N E COUNTY, CITY OF MADISON and D A N E COUNTY COURTHOUSE, D efendan ts. ---------------------------------------------

1

I am assuming jurisdiction over these cases for the purpose of issuing this order.

1

R O D N E Y C. MOORE, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 9 -c v -3 6 4 -s lc v. M A R K BENNETT, STATE OF WISCONSIN, C O L U M B IA COUNTY COURTHOUSE, JA N E KOHLWAY, MARK LAWTON an d CITY OF PORTAGE, D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------O n July 20, 2009, I issued three separate orders dismissing each of the abovecaptioned cases because plaintiff Rodney Moore's claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 5 1 2 U.S. 477 (1994), and Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). On November 2, 20 09 , plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss these three cases. In an order dated January 6, 2010, I denied plaintiff's motion because his explanation (that he attempted to file the motion in July and August 2009 but prison officials stopped him from doing so) was n o t credible, particularly in light of his other filings in these cases indicating his desire to co n tin ue with the litigation. On March 4, 2010, I denied plaintiff's motion for

reco nsideratio n of the January 6, 2010 order because plaintiff failed to provide a plausible explanation that was consistent with his other filings in these cases. Now plaintiff has filed another motion for reconsideration, which I construe as a

2

m otion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 to alter or amend the judgment. It seems that he wants the court to reconsider the July 20 orders dismissing his claims. However, he fails to show why su ccess on his claims would not undermine his conviction or any other reason why Heck and Preiser do not apply. I also note that it has been almost eight months since judgment was entered in this case, which makes his Rule 59 motion approximately seven months late (u nder the old version of Rule 59 applicable to this case, plaintiff had 10 days after the July 27 , 2009 entry of judgment to file a motion to amend the judgment). Even if I construed the motion as a Rule 60 motion for relief from the judgment (which allows plaintiff a "reason able time" to file the motion), he does not raise any of the reasons for relief enum erated in the statute. Therefore, his motion for reconsideration will be denied. Pla in tiff should be aware that his repeated frivolous post-judgment filings in these cases waste judicial resources. If plaintiff persists in filing documents in these cases, the clerk of court should route the documents to chambers for a determination whether the subject m atter is appropriate for consideration as a post-judgment motion. If it is not, the document w ill be placed in the file and it will be given no further consideration. For the time being, plaintiff is free to file documents in his other cases pending in this court.

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Rodney Moore's motion for reconsideration in these

3

three cases is DENIED. E n tered this 22n d day of March, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

4