Tatum, Robert v. Cimpl, Dennis et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 15 Motion for Recusal. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 11/14/2016. (jef),(ps)

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

ROBERT TATUM, and all similarly situated
DOC/CCI Inmates,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENNIS CIMPL, CHRISTINE CHARETTE,
KELLY DEFORT, DONNA LENDOWSKI,
JACKELINE MALONE, LEPOSAVA MUNNS,
KATHY NELSON, KAREN PALIS,
TAMMY SYLVESTER, LISA WENINGER,
PATRICIA CURLEY, “JOHN” HIGGINBOTHAM,
DIANE FREMGREN, JEFFREY KREMERS,
SUSAN “B.”, ALAN WHITE, SUSAN RAIMER,
FRANK REMINGTON, CARLOS ESQUEDA,
WILLIAM CONLEY, PETER OPPENEER,
“M.” HARDIN, and LINDA MUHAMMAD,

ORDER
14-cv-690-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Robert Tatum, a prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, brought
this proposed civil class action alleging that defendants, mostly judges and court employees,
violated his First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights in various ways
during his criminal proceedings and civil actions. In a February 12, 2016, order, I dismissed
the case for Tatum’s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Dkt. 9. I
concluded that Tatum’s claims against judges and related court employees were barred by
absolute judicial immunity, that his claims against various court reporters were barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because they would call his conviction into question,
and his claim against his mother for taking part in a wide-ranging conspiracy to deprive him
of his rights was implausible. Id.

Tatum filed a motion a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e), Dkt. 11, which I denied in a July 21, 2016, order, Dkt. 13. I construed
Tatum’s motion as including a motion for my recusal, which I also denied. Id. at 2.
Now Tatum has filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 21 order, Dkt. 14, along
with a motion for my recusal, Dkt. 15. I will deny both of these motions. Nothing in either
motion persuades me that I was incorrect in dismissing the case, denying Tatum’s motion to
vacate the judgment, or refusing to recuse myself.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Robert Tatum’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s July 21,
2016, order, Dkt. 14, is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for my recusal, Dkt. 15, is DENIED.
Entered November 14, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2