Carter, Jackie v. Ziegler et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying #59 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/2/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JACKIE CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
14-cv-512-wmc

ZIEGLER, PISCHKES, HASON, JAMES,
MELBY, LIESER, MEISNER, HAUTAMAKI,
MORGAN, GREER, ANDERSON, and DR.
CORRELL,
Defendants.
On December 20, 2016, the court issued an opinion and order granting
defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and directing the clerk of court enter
judgment in their favor. (Dkt. #57; Judgment (dkt. #58).) In that opinion and order,
the court pointed out Carter’s failure to comply with this court’s guidelines on summary
judgment, which require a plaintiff to respond to defendants’ proposed findings of fact by
numbered paragraph, something he knows full well as a frequent filer in this district.
(12/20/16 Op. & Order (dkt. #57) 1-2.) Still, as explained in that opinion, the court
expressed sympathy to plaintiff’s pro se position, and reviewed “his submission liberally,
including reviewing materials attached to his complaint and filed independent of any
motion or response to defendants’ motion.” (Id.)
Despite that liberal approach, the court nevertheless found that his claims failed as
a matter of law. Specifically, with respect to his First Amendment retaliation claim, the
court concluded that his August 2013 letter was not protected speech under the First
Amendment, and with respect to his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim,

that no reasonable jury could find defendants acted recklessly in their treatment of his
medical needs on the facts of record.
In response to that opinion and order, Carter filed a letter, which the court will
construe as a motion for reconsideration.

(Dkt. #59.)

In the two-page submission,

Carter raises concerns that the court dismissed his case because he failed to follow the
procedures, directs the courts to his filings, and offers to submit additional unidentified
evidence. As explained above, while the court was critical of Carter’s failure to follow
procedures -- which are clearly described for all pro se litigants generally and certainly
familiar to Carter personally -- defendants’ motion for summary judgment was not
granted on that basis. Instead, the court reviewed all of the materials Carter submitted
to the court, and as explained in its opinion, it concluded that his claims failed as a
matter of law on the undisputed facts.
Accordingly, Carter offers no basis in his letter for the court to reexamine that
decision, and his motion for reconsideration (dkt. #59) is DENIED.
Entered this 2nd day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2