Wallace, James v. Cooper, Sarah et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 24 Motion to alter or amend the January 7, 2014 judgment in this case. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 3/20/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JAMES ALLEN WALLACE,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-507-bbc
v.
SARAH COOPER and THOMAS ROSS,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff James Wallace, a prisoner housed at the Green Bay Correctional Institution,
filed this lawsuit alleging that prison staff confiscated his legal documents, which led to the
denial of his right to gain access to the courts in later proceedings. In a January 7, 2014
order, I dismissed the case for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, stating as follows:
[Plaintiff’s] assertion about being unable to help his attorney with his case is
extremely vague and his more precise allegation that he was unable to show
that the judge was biased against him is unsupported. Plaintiff does not
explain what documents show this, and in any case, it is difficult to conceive
of any court documents showing judicial bias that plaintiff would have that his
counsel would not have been able to acquire through other means. Moreover,
it is unclear how plaintiff could have been prejudiced when his counsel was
able to file detailed briefs with the court of appeals and plaintiff’s petition for
review has not yet been decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In short,
there is nothing in any of the complaints plaintiff has filed that suggest that
he has a plausible claim of having been denied access to the courts. At most,
plaintiff’s claims are only at the level of speculation, which is not sufficient to
state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Atkins
v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823, 830-32 (7th Cir. 2011) (to avoid dismissal,

1

a plaintiff "must plead some facts that suggest a right to relief that is beyond
the speculative level").
Dkt. #21. Judgment was entered the same day, dkt. #22. Now plaintiff has filed a motion
for reconsideration of this decision (along with two supplements to that motion), which I
construe as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
Plaintiff says that it will cost him money to get back the documents that prison staff
has taken, and that he and his new attorney will use those documents to “come up with
some answer about my case.” This statement is no more persuasive than his previous
arguments, as it again demonstrates that plaintiff is merely speculating that he would be able
to find success in his criminal proceedings with these documents or than he has been
prejudiced by not having them in previous proceedings. Because nothing in his motion or
supplements persuades me that it was error to dismiss the case, I will deny his motion to
alter or amend the January 7 judgment.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff James Wallace’s motion to alter or amend the January
7, 2014 judgment in this case, dkt. #24, is DENIED.
Entered this 20th day of March, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2