Soto, Jose v. Kelley et al

Filing 113

ORDER denying plaintiff Jose Soto's 111 motion for relief from judgment. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 9/20/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOSE SOTO,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

KELLY RICKEY, MATTHEW GRANT,
RICK DONOVAN, WILLIAM GEE,
JASON KROCKER, and WILLIAM LEFEVRE,

14-cv-514-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Jose Soto, represented by counsel, brought claims that defendants violated his
rights under the Eighth Amendment by using excessive force against him and that certain
defendants violated his rights under the First Amendment by retaliating against him when he
mounted a hunger strike to protest the excessive force used against him. I granted summary
judgment and judgment as a matter of law in favor of some defendants, and on July 25, 2017,
a jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants on all remaining claims. Dkt. 109. Accordingly,
the court entered judgment in favor of defendants and closed the case. Dkt. 110.
Now Soto—without his attorney—has filed a motion for leave to proceed pro se on
claims of deliberate indifference. Dkt. 111. Soto, through counsel, already attempted to
proceed on these claims, but I concluded that the deliberate indifference claims could not be
joined with Soto’s other claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Dkt. 28. Soto also
attempted to proceed pro se on these claims, but I denied him leave to do so because he was
represented by counsel and so could not file motions directly with the court. Dkt. 43.
Once again, I will deny Soto leave to proceed on deliberate indifference claims. Final
judgment has been entered in this case. Because Soto’s filed his motion more than 28 days

after entry of judgment, I will construe it as one for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).
Relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b) “is an extraordinary remedy and is granted only
in exceptional circumstances.” Bakery Mach. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570
F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Reinsurance Co. of Am., Inc. v. Administratia Asigurarilor
de Stat, 902 F.2d 1275, 1277 (7th Cir. 1990)). This case does not present an exceptional
circumstance.
More fundamentally, I have consistently denied Soto leave to proceed on the deliberate
indifference claims in this case because they do not belong in the same lawsuit as his other
claims. As I explained in my first screening order, Rule 20 prohibits a plaintiff from asserting
unrelated claims against different defendants in the same lawsuit. Defendants may be joined
in one lawsuit only if the claims against them arise out of the same transaction or occurrence
and present questions of law or fact that are common to them all. Soto’s deliberate indifference
claims concern different events and name different individuals as defendants. They do not
belong in this lawsuit. This does not mean that Soto may not proceed on claims of deliberate
indifference; it just means that he can’t proceed on them in this suit. I have previously invited
Soto to file a separate complaint concerning the deliberate indifference claims. See Dkt. 28, at
4. Until Soto does so, I cannot consider those claims.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Jose Soto’s motion for relief from judgment, Dkt. 111,
is DENIED.
Entered September 20, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3