Thomas, Darreyll v. Reese, Michael et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying plaintiff's 54 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 10/15/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DARREYLL T. THOMAS,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
I3-cv-597-wmc

v.

MICHAEL REESE, et al.,
Defendants.
State inmate Darreyll T. Thomas filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, challenging the conditions of his confinement at the Dane County Jail.

On

August 6, 20 I 4, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss after finding that
Thomas failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit as required
by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § l 997e(a). On October IO, 2014, the
court denied Thomas's motion to reopen the case and entered judgment in favor of
defendants.
Thomas has now filed a motion for reconsideration, which is construed as one
seeking to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rather than offer
evidence of exhaustion as he was invited to do in the Court's August 6, 20I4 order,
Thomas again raises arguments that are similar to ones that were raised and considered
previously in denying his motion to reopen on October IO, 20I4. A Rule 59(e) motion is
not intended as a vehicle to relitigate matters already disposed of or to raise novel
theories. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 78I F.2d I260, I268 (7th Cir. I 986).
As such, the Rule 59(e) movant "must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or

must present newly discovered evidence." Id. In this context, a "manifest error" means

"wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent." Oto

v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000). Thomas does not meet
this showing here.
As discussed previously in this case, Thomas's claims stem from an alleged use of

force that resulted in major disciplinary charges being filed against him.

Thomas

concedes that he chose not to challenge the use of force by appearing at an administrative
disciplinary hearing offered as part of the remedy process at the Jail, bypassing an
opportunity to raise the issues that form the basis of his complaint. Although Thomas
claims that he was unaware that the administrative disciplinary hearing was part of the
Jail's remedy process, those procedures are explained in the Inmate Handbook in the
section entitled "Formal Grievance Procedure." (Dkt. # 36, Exh. B.) In particular, those
procedures state that "[g]rievances may not be filed for issues involving major discipline
(i.e., disciplinary hearings) because a separate appeal process is available." (Id.) The right
to appear at a formal hearing and dispute factual information presented in connection
with disciplinary matters was also explained to Thomas in a "Notice of Disciplinary
Hearing and Rights." (Dkt. # 36, Exh. C.)
Thomas admits that he had access to a copy of the Inmate Handbook at the Jail.
(Dkt. # 49, Thomas Deel. 11 2.) Likewise, Thomas admits that he received notice of his
rights in connection with the disciplinary charges against him.

(Dkt. # 36, Exh. C.)

Based on this record, Thomas does not show that he lacked information or that he was
prevented from pursuing the remedy process at the Jail. More importantly, Thomas does

2

not establish that he is entitled to relief from the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Accordingly, Thomas's motion for reconsideration will be denied.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Darreyll T. Thomas's motion for reconsideration
(dkt. # 54) is DENIED.
Entered this 15th day of October, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Isl
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3