Lindell, Nathaniel v. Hamblin, Gary et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying plaintiff Lindell's 8 motion for reconsideration. Lindell's motion to file an amended complaint regarding his claims that he was wrongfully denied access to the literary journals Crazyhorse and Poet Lore (dkt. # 8 ) is DEN IED without prejudice at this time, but his request for an extension of time to submit an amended complaint regarding these claims is GRANTED. Lindell is directed to file his amended complaint in this case no later than ten (10) days from the date o f this order. That amended complaint will be screened in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If that amended complaint fails to comply with this order or the order entered on November 6, 2013, the court will dismiss the complaint and this action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 12/11/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NATHANIEL ALLEN LINDELL,
Plaintiff,1

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
12-cv-646-wmc
EDWARD F. WALL, et al.,
Defendants.
State inmate Nathaniel A. Lindell filed a proposed civil action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, lodging an assortment of claims against multiple defendants in
connection with the conditions of his confinement at the Wisconsin Secure Program
Facility (“WSPF”). In reviewing the original complaint, the court observed that Lindell was
attempting to join unrelated claims against multiple defendants. On November 6, 2013,

the court issued an order striking that complaint and instructed Lindell to submit an
amended complaint setting forth a single claim or claims permissibly joined in
compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) and 20(a). Lindell has not complied as directed.
Instead, Lindell filed a motion for reconsideration, requesting leave to proceed with all of
his claims. Alternatively, Lindell requests an extension of time to submit an amended
complaint in compliance with the court’s November 6th order.
Lindell’s request for reconsideration is construed as a motion to alter or amend
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). To prevail on a motion under Rule 59(e), the moving
party must identify an error of law that merits reconsideration of the judgment. See Obriecht v.

Plaintiff filed this case originally under his full legal name, “Nathaniel Allen Lindell.” (Dkt.
# 1). Plaintiff now indicates that he prefers to be known as “Nate A. Lindell.” (Dkt. # 8).
For purposes of consistency and judicial administration, the style of this case will remain as
originally filed.
1

Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008); Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, Ill., 487 F.3d 506,
511-12 (7th Cir. 2007). Lindell does not make this showing.
As outlined in the order of November 6, 2013, Lindell’s proposed claims concerned
different prison policies, including the restriction on donating personal copies of publications
to the library or loaning those publications to other inmates; the blanket ban in place at
WSPF that precludes prisoners from having hardcover books in their cells; and the general
limitation on access to periodicals while inmates are assigned to disciplinary segregation.
Lindell took issue with two separate decisions denying him access to certain literary
publications (Crazyhorse and Poet Lore).

In addition, Lindell included specific claims

concerning the librarian’s refusal to provide him with a free copy of a WDOC annual fiscal
report; her cancellation of National Geographic magazine; and her refusal to borrow
unspecified materials on Lindell’s behalf pursuant to the prison “interlibrary loan” policy.
Lindell also does not demonstrate that these claims were properly joined, nor show that the
November 6th order on these claims was entered in error.

Accordingly, he is not entitled to

relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Lindell has requested leave to file a complaint joining his claims that he was
wrongfully denied access to the literary magazines Crazyhorse and Poet Lore as the result of an
arbitrary interpretation of the prison policy restricting hardcover books. He also requests a
10-day extension of time to submit a proposed amended complaint containing these claims.
Because he has not submitted a proposed amended complaint, the court cannot grant his
request for leave to amend.

In that respect, a litigant’s failure to submit a proposed

amended complaint dooms his request for leave to amend. See Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556
F.3d 575, 590-91 (7th Cir. 2009); James Cape & Sons Co. v. PCC Constr. Co., 453 F.3d
2

396, 401 (7th Cir. 2006); Twohy v. First Nat’l Bank of Chi., 758 F.2d 1185, 1197 (7th
Cir. 1985).

The court will, however, grant Lindell an extension of time to submit an

amended complaint concerning his claim that he was wrongfully denied access to the literary
journals Crazyhorse and Poet Lore provided his submission complies with the court’s November
6, 2013 order.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Nathaniel A. Lindell’s motion for reconsideration (dkt. # 8) is
DENIED.
2. Lindell’s motion to file an amended complaint regarding his claims that he was
wrongfully denied access to the literary journals Crazyhorse and Poet Lore (dkt. #
8) is DENIED without prejudice at this time, but his request for an extension
of time to submit an amended complaint regarding these claims is GRANTED.
3. Lindell is directed to file his amended complaint in this case no later than ten
(10) days from the date of this order.

That amended complaint will be

screened in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If that amended complaint
fails to comply with this order or the order entered on November 6, 2013, the
court will dismiss the complaint and this action with prejudice pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Entered this 11th day of December, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
___/s/_______________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
3