Tatum, Robert v. Cimpl, Dennis et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying plaintiff's 28 motion for relief from judgment. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 4/17/2017. (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. I dismissed the case for Tatum’s failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Dkt. 9. I later denied Tatum’s motion to
alter or amend judgment, Dkt. 13, and Tatum’s motion for reconsideration of that order,
Dkt. 16. Tatum filed an appeal but it was dismissed by the court of appeals after he failed to
pay the filing fee. Dkt. 31.
While Tatum’s appeal was pending, he filed a motion for relief from judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, stating that this court’s reliance on Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), was no longer a reason to dismiss his claims because his underlying

criminal conviction was vacated by the Seventh Circuit in Tatum’s habeas proceedings,
Tatum v. Foster, 847 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 2017).
Tatum is correct that his conviction has been vacated, and in a different circumstance
it might be the basis for a proper Rule 60 motion regarding a dismissal based on Heck. But as
I stated in screening his claims, Heck was not the only reason to dismiss his claims. I
concluded that they were barred by judicial immunity, or they otherwise were so
implausible—he alleged that court reporters filed falsified transcripts ‘to eliminate appeal
merit,’” Dkt. 9, at 6; and that his mother was paid by the state to facilitate a conspiracy
against him—that they could not support claims upon which relief could be granted. Because
his claims failed even without a Heck bar, I will deny his Rule 60 motion.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Robert Tatum’s motion for relief from judgment,
Dkt. 28, is DENIED.
Entered April 17, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2