# Winger v. Doe

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · December 1, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10157094

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** December 1, 2023
- **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/10157094

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10157094. Public record. Not legal advice.