Vinson Sr, Joshua v. Nielsen, Mark

Filing 23

ORDER Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 21 , is DENIED. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 05/10/2024. (acd),(ps)

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

JOSHUA LEE VINSON SR,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
20-cv-719-wmc1

MARK F. NIELSEN,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Joshua Lee Vinson, Sr., proceeding without counsel, alleged that the judge
who presided over his 2019 criminal trial in Racine County violated his constitutional
rights by allowing the prosecutor to add two charges on the first day of trial. I denied
Vinson leave to proceed and dismissed this case because defendant Judge Mark F. Nielsen
was entitled to absolute immunity for his rulings in the criminal case and because Vinson’s
claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Dkt. 19. Vinson now seeks
reconsideration of my ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and he requests
leave to file an amended complaint against Judge Nielsen based on “newly discovered
evidence.” Dkt. 21. I will deny the motion.
A Rule 59(e) motion “will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes:
‘(1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered
evidence precluded entry of judgment.’” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954
(7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th

1

I am exercising jurisdiction over this case for purposes of initial screening only.

Cir. 2012)). A “manifest error” is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing
party; it is the “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling
precedent.” Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Where a plaintiff
has not been afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint before a judgment of
dismissal, his post-judgment motion for leave to amend is governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a), which provides that the court “should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” See O’Brien v. Village of Lincolnshire, 955 F.3d 616, 628-29 (7th Cir. 2020). But a
court may deny leave to amend if amendment would be futile. Kap Holdings, LLC v. MarCone Appliance Parts Co., 55 F.4th 517, 529 (7th Cir. 2022).
Vinson gives me no reason to revisit my ruling and allow him to amend the
complaint. He provides as “newly discovered evidence” his Racine County Jail booking
sheet indicating that he was charged with a child sex crime in January 2018 that the district
attorney declined to prosecute. Dkt. 22-1. Vinson alleges that he was detained at the jail
and tried for and convicted of this “nonexistent crime,” and that defendant Judge Nielsen
acted as a “de facto prosecutor,” and sentenced him “without fundamental jurisdiction” or
“due process” for the “nonexistent crime.” Dkt. 21 at 3.
Vinson does not provide a proposed amended complaint with his Rule 59(e) motion
as required to allow me to consider the merits of his post-judgment request for leave to
amend. Harris v. City of Auburn, 27 F.3d 1284, 1287 (7th Cir. 1994). A court may deny a
request for leave to amend on this basis alone. See, e.g., Doe v. Village of Arlington Heights,
782 F.3d 911, 919 (7th Cir. 2015) (concluding that, without a proposed amended
complaint, the court was “unable to meaningfully evaluate whether the proposed
2

amendment would have cured the deficiencies in the original complaint”); Doe v. Howe
Military Sch., 227 F.3d 981, 989-90 (7th Cir. 2000).
But even if Vinson had included the proposed amended complaint, it would not
change the result. Vinson’s booking sheet shows that although the charge of first-degree
sexual assault of a child was initially declined by the prosecution, Vinson was convicted of
a similar charge, and other charges, later filed in 2019. None of Vinson’s allegations change
the fact that Judge Nielsen had jurisdiction over Vinson’s state-court criminal proceeding
as the presiding judge and he has absolute immunity for his judicial decisions in that
proceeding. See Brunson v. Murray, 843 F.3d 698, 710 (7th Cir. 2016) (judges are entitled
to absolute immunity for challenged actions that are “judicial in nature”). A further
problem with Vinson’s complaint is that a writ of habeas corpus, not a civil rights lawsuit,
is the appropriate remedy for state prisoners who attack the validity of their convictions.
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 392 (2007). Vinson is therefore not entitled to relief under
Rule 59(e). Nor does justice require that he be allowed to amend his complaint.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 21, is DENIED.
Entered May 10, 2024.
BY THE COURT:

/S/________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3