Vega, Alfredo v. Weber, Lucas et al

Filing 54

ORDER denying plaintiff Alfredo Vega's 50 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 12/3/2018. (jef),(ps)

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

ALFREDO VEGA,
Plaintiff,
v.
LUCAS WEBER and LINDSEY WALKER,

ORDER
17-cv-116-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Alfredo Vega, appearing pro se, is an inmate at Green Bay Correctional
Institution. Vega alleges that defendant prison officials conducted a disciplinary hearing
without many of the procedural safeguards afforded him by prison regulations, which he says
violated his right to due process.
Vega previously filed a motion for default judgment, Dkt. 18, stating that defendants
did not file an answer within the time set by the court. But I denied Vega’s motion because
defendants promptly filed a motion to dismiss instead of an answer. See Dkt. 49. Vega has filed
a motion he titles as one asking for reconsideration of that decision. Dkt. 50. He does not
provide any persuasive reason for me to reconsider my decision regarding default judgment, so
I will deny his motion. Vega also asks that defendants be ordered to file their answer within 14
days of my decision denying their motion to dismiss, but defendants have already filed their
answer within 14 days, see Dkt. 51, so that issue is moot.
Finally, Vega contends that in their motion to dismiss, defendants essentially agreed
with his version of the facts, conceding that they violated Wisconsin regulations by depriving
him of advance notice of the hearing, an advocate to assist him, and the ability to call witnesses.
He asks whether he “would be able to use the defendants answer to complaint, to support [his]

claim in his response to defendants summary judgment motion due on January 7, 2019.”
Dkt. 50, at 2. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6), any allegation he makes in his
complaint that defendants do not deny in their answer is deemed admitted. So at the summary
judgment stage, he is free to cite any portion of defendants’ answer admitting that his
allegations are true.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Alfredo Vega’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s
October 30, 2018 order, Dkt. 50, is DENIED.
Entered December 3, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2