The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ENNIS LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 17-cv-462-pp
NICHOLAS JOHNSON, et al.
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(DKT. NO. 69)
On September 9, 2019, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment, denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’
motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 67. The court dismissed the case and
entered judgment. Dkt. Nos. 67, 68. On September 25, 2019, the plaintiff filed a
motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). He also
filed a supplement to his motion on December 5, 2019. Dkt. No. 70.
The plaintiff filed his motion within twenty-eight days after the court
entered judgment, so it is timely under Rule 59(e). “Rule 59(e) allows a court to
alter or amend a judgment only if the petitioner can demonstrate a manifest error
of law or present newly discovered evidence.” Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d
489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506, 511-12
(7th Cir. 2007)). Whether to grant a motion to amend judgment “is entrusted to
1
the sound judgment of the district court.” In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir.
1996).
The plaintiff asserts that the court misapplied well-established law and
applied “inaccurate” facts. Dkt. No. 69 at 1. He also says there is newly
discovered evidence that wasn’t presented to the court. Id. He also asserts that
the court denied his motions, and granted the defendants’ motions, in retaliation
for the fact that the plaintiff filed a writ of mandamus against the court. Id.
A good portion of the plaintiff’s motion rehashes the evidence presented at
summary judgment and argues that the court misapplied that evidence. Under
Rule 59(e), the plaintiff is entitled to relief only if he can demonstrate that the
court’s rulings constituted a manifest error of law. A “manifest error of law” “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.2d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sedrak v.
Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)).
The plaintiff has not demonstrated that the court failed to recognize any
controlling precedent or disregarded the law. He disagrees with how the court
applied the law, reiterating legal arguments from his summary judgment and
default judgment motions related to the standard for granting default motions,
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and Fourth Amendment law. A court
may reject a motion that “merely took umbrage with the court’s ruling and
rehashed arguments.” Oto, 244 F.2d at 606.
2
The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants presented altered or irrelevant
exhibits. Dkt. No. 69 at 5. The court discussed these allegations in its ruling; the
plaintiff disagrees with them. That is his right, but it is not a basis for granting
reconsideration. The plaintiff reiterates that he believes the court should recuse
itself—this time because he believes the court mixed this case up with some of his
others. Id. at 9. The court has explained, more than once, why it will not recuse
itself.
The court DENIES the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 39).
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 24th day of April, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
Chief United States District Judge