Opinion

Winger v. Doe

Court
District Court, S.D. Illinois
Filed
Dec 1, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 21.3%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MARK WINGER, #K97120,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE #3, DIRECTOR JOHN Case No. 19-CV-00236-SPM-GCS

BALDWIN, LOUIS SHICKER,

WARDEN OF

MENARD CORRECTIONAL

CENTER, and

DR. NEWBOLD,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

McGLYNN, District Judge:

Before the Court is Plaintiff Mark Winger’s Motion to Reopen Dismissed Case.

(See Docs. 251 & 257).1 Having been fully informed of the issues presented, the Court

DENIES Winger’s Motion to Reopen Dismissed Case.

The instant case was settled in the entirety on February 1, 2023 in a settlement

conference before United States Magistrate Judge Gilbert Sison. (See Doc. 226). On

July 14, 2023, Winger filed a Motion to Postpone Dismissal and an Order by the Court

Directing the Defendant to Comply with Confidential Settlement Agreement. (See

Doc. 234). On August 10, 2023, Wexford filed a sealed and redacted Response. (See

1 Due to the fact that Winger’s Motion (Doc. 251) included confidential settlement and health

information, Defendant Wexford requested in its Response (see Docs. 255 & 256) that this document

be sealed and a redacted version be filed for public viewing. The Court included this redacted version

as a separate document. (See Doc. 257). Additionally, this Order does not reference any of this

confidential material.

Docs. 237 & 238). Winger filed a Reply on August 16, 2023. (See Doc. 239). The Illinois

Department of Corrections (IDOC) Co-Defendants then filed a Stipulation of

Dismissal on August 21, 2023. (See Doc. 240). On September 5, 2023, the Court denied

Plaintiff’s Motion to Postpone Dismissal (Doc. 234) and dismissed Defendants with

prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 240) and this Court’s Order

(Doc. 228). (See Doc. 242). Winger then filed a Motion to Modify Judgment (Doc. 244)

on September 7, 2023, which this Court denied on September 11, 2023. (See Doc. 245).

Winger next filed a Motion to Reopen Case, arguing that the Stipulation of Dismissal

(Doc. 240) was only between Plaintiff and the IDOC Defendants. (See Doc. 246). On

September 27, 2023, Wexford filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case,

acknowledging that the Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 240) was only between Winger

and the IDOC Defendants. (See Doc. 249, p. 2). Wexford also provided an update on

Winger’s claims relating to the confidential settlement agreement between Winger

and Wexford. (See Docs. 248 & 249). This Court denied Winger’s Motion to Reopen

Case (Doc. 246). (See Doc. 250).

Winger filed the instant Motion to Reopen Dismissed Case on November 13,

2023 requesting that this case be reopened pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 60(b)(3) and 60(b)(6) because of alleged fraud committed against Winger

by Wexford. (See Doc. 251, pp. 2–3; Doc. 257, pp. 2–3). Wexford argues that their

documentation shows no evidence of the fraud that Winger claims. (See Docs. 255,

256, 258). Winger also alleges that Wexford disclosed details of the confidential

settlement agreement to another individual. (See Doc. 251, pp. 2–3; Doc. 257, pp. 2–

3).

The Seventh Circuit has stated that “Rule 60(b) relief is an extraordinary

remedy granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Rutledge v. United States, 230

F.3d 1041, 1052 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Dickerson v. Board of Educ. of Ford Heights,

Ill., 32 F.3d 1114, 1116 (7th Cir. 1994)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1199 (2001). Having

reviewed the confidential records in question, this Court can find no evidence of the

fraud that Winger claims. Moreover, Winger’s allegation that Wexford revealed

details of the confidential settlement offers nothing more than bare conclusions. By

the Court’s assessment, Wexford is in compliance with the confidential settlement

agreement between the parties. As Winger has not met the high bar for a Rule 60(b)

motion, reopening this case is unwarranted and improper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3),

(6).

Therefore, based on the above, Plaintiff Winger’s Motion to Reopen Dismissed

Case (Docs. 251 & 257) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 1, 2023

s/ Stephen P. McGlynn

STEPHEN P. McGLYNN

U.S. District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.