# Hoskins v. Lieutenant Shirley

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · November 28, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155788

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** November 28, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155788

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that Rule 59(e) was intended to apply to the reconsideration of matters encompassed within the merits of a judgment

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOSHUA HOSKINS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 20-cv-560-RJD
)
WESLEY SHIRLEY, CHAD WALL, )
DANIEL J. HARRISS, OFFICER BROCK, J. )
RUETER, R. TOMSHACK, JOSEPH )
DUDEK, KALE LIVELY, C. HECK, C. )
SWISHER, G. HALE, SERGEANT GROVE, )
C. ADAMS, BRIAN MILLER, and SETH )
MERACLE, )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Joshua Hoskins, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit on June 12, 2020 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional
Center (“Pinckneyville”). Plaintiff’s complaint includes various allegations against numerous
defendants spanning from May 11, 2020 through May 28, 2020.
Plaintiff’s complaint was screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and he was allowed to
proceed on the following claims:
Count One: Eighth Amendment claim for conditions of confinement related to personal
hygiene items, showers, bedding and food against all Defendants between
May 11 and May 28, 2020.

Count Two: Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force against Shirly and Harriss.

Count Three: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition
against all Defendants between May 11 and May 28, 2020.
Page 1 of 6
Count Four: First Amendment retaliation claim against all Defendants1.

(See Doc. 24).

The undersigned entered judgment in favor of Defendants on March 7, 2022, having
granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative
remedies (Docs. 98, 99).
Following the entry of judgment, Plaintiff filed numerous motions asking the undersigned
to reconsider (Docs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 107). These motions are now before the Court. For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration are DENIED.
Legal Standard
Plaintiff captions his motions as Motions for Reconsideration. Plaintiff fails to cite any
rule under which he brings his motion. Based on the posture of this case and timing of the
motions, the Court finds it appropriate to consider Plaintiff’s motions as motions to alter or amend
judgment under both Rule 59 and Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 59(e) provides a basis for relief where a party challenges the Court’s application of
the law to the facts of the case. See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174-76 (1989)
(concluding that Rule 59(e) was intended to apply to the reconsideration of matters encompassed
within the merits of a judgment). While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to exercise its
discretion to correct its own errors, sparing the time and expense of further proceedings at the
appellate level, Divane v. Krull Elec. Co. Inc., 194 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 1999), “ill-founded
requests for reconsideration of issues previously decided … needlessly take the court’s attention
from current matters.” Berger v. Xerox Ret. Income Guar. Plan, 231 F.Supp.2d 804, 820 (S.D.

1 Defendants are Wesley Shirley, Chad Wall, Daniel Harriss, Officer Brock, Jana Rueter, R. Tomshack, Joseph
Dudek, Kale Lively, C. Heck, C. Swisher, G. Hale, Sergeant Grove, C. Adams, Brian Miller, and Seth Meracle.
Page 2 of 6
Ill. 2002). Typically, Rule 59(e) motions are granted upon a showing of either newly discovered
evidence not previously available or evidence in the record that clearly establishes a manifest error
of law or fact. Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, Ill., 487 F.3d 506, 511-12 (7th Cir. 2007); Romo v.
Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 250 F.3d 1119, 1121 n.3 (7th Cir. 2001). “[M]anifest error is not

demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is the wholesale disregard,
misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). A proper motion to reconsider does
more than take umbrage and restate the arguments that were initially rejected during the summary
judgment phase. County of McHenry v. Ins. Co. of the West, 438 F.3d 813, 819 (7th Cir. 2006);
Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004); Oto, 224 F.3d at 606.
Rule 60(b) contains a more exacting standard than Rule 59(e), although it permits relief
from a judgment for a number of reasons including mistake, fraud, misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party, or “any other reason that justifies relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b).
In contrast to Rule 59(e), however, legal error is not an appropriate ground for relief under Rule

60(b). Gleash v. Yuswak, 308 F.3d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 2002) (“A contention that the judge erred
with respect to the materials in the record is not within Rule 60(b)’s scope, else it would be
impossible to enforce time limits for appeal.”). Relief under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary
remedy and is only granted in exceptional circumstances. United States v. 8136 S. Dobson St.,
Chicago Ill., 125 F.3d 1076, 1082 (7th Cir. 1997).
Discussion
In the motions now before the Court, Plaintiff sets forth a litany of arguments he asserts
support a finding that he was thwarted in his efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies.
First, Plaintiff asserts counselors Reid, Rebecca King, and Tyler King testified they would
Page 3 of 6
not be present when they were touring cellhouses and interacting with inmates. Therefore,
Plaintiff asserts they would not know what other counselors were telling inmates about the
processing of grievances. The Court agrees with this inference; however, it is not dispositive of
any issue before the Court. In the Court’s discussion of the testimony of these counselors, the

undersigned merely noted the counselors testified that they never heard any other counselor tell
Plaintiff they would not process certain grievances. Plaintiff’s statements do not make this
finding erroneous. The basis for the Court’s decision in this instance was Plaintiff’s credibility,
or lack thereof, and the Court finds Plaintiff’s argument does not present new evidence or suggest
a manifest error of law or fact in the Court’s ultimate finding of credibility. It is also not
indicative of any misrepresentation or misconduct by Defendants.
Plaintiff also urges the Court to review testimony of two hearings held on the issue of
exhaustion of administrative remedies in other cases. Plaintiff asserts testimony in those cases
contradicts testimony provided in this case. In particular, Plaintiff asserts counselor Reid testified
in Hoskins v. Swisher, et al., 20-cv-533-SPM that he knew Plaintiff had lawsuits pending while

Plaintiff was on Reid’s caseload, contradicting Reid’s testimony in the case at hand that he was not
aware Plaintiff had lawsuits pending against other staff members. The Court cannot review the
testimony in 20-cv-533-SMP as it was not provided by Plaintiff and is not publicly available.
Plaintiff also references testimony from a hearing in Hoksins v. Brock, et al., 20-cv-788-GCS,
wherein he states that witnesses testified that excessive force grievances are handled by internal
affairs, and counselor Mercier testified that he did not log every conversation he had with an
inmate into CHAMPS. These statements simply do not undermine the Court’s previous findings
regarding Plaintiff’s credibility. Further, there is no indication that the testimony in these other
cases has any bearing on the issues here and certainly the testimony does not present new evidence
Page 4 of 6
or suggest a manifest error or law or fact.
Plaintiff also makes broad, unfounded statements asserting Reid and Brown lied in this
case because they are defendants in other lawsuits, and the counselors lied in testifying in this case
because they were aware Plaintiff was an inmate who would file lawsuits and they knew Plaintiff

was suing other staff members. These arguments are not based on evidence, do not present new
evidence or suggest a manifest error of law or fact. As such, there is no basis for reconsideration
due to the same.
Finally, in his various motions, Plaintiff asserts it would not take 30 or 60 days for him to
know his grievances were not going to be processed. This argument is misplaced as it does not go
to the Court’s ultimate finding concerning Plaintiff’s credibility.
The only argument with any merit in Plaintiff’s motions is his reference to the Court’s
discussion concerning the January 8, 2021 grievance. Plaintiff states that the January 8, 2021
grievance was filed before Defendants’ motions were filed. Plaintiff is correct. In the Order
granting Defendants’ motions, the Court erroneously states this grievance was filed after

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment were filed and after Plaintiff filed his initial responses
to the same. This reference to timing, however, is not dispositive of the issues before the Court
and the Court’s finding regarding Plaintiff’s credibility is unchanged. Indeed, the timing of the
submission of the January 8, 2021 grievance, closely following Plaintiff’s documented interaction
with counselor Hallman on December 30, 2020, supports the conclusion that Plaintiff was
attempting to substantiate his “story” that his counselors refused to process certain grievances.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Reconsider (Doc. 102),
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 103), Second Supplemental Motion for
Page 5 of 6
Reconsideration (Doc. 104), Motion for the Court to Consider When Ruling on Motions for
Reconsideration (Doc. 105), and Second Motion for the Court to Consider When Ruling on
Motions for Reconsideration (Doc. 107) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 28, 2022

s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 6 of 6

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155788. Public record. Not legal advice.