Holeyfield v. WellPath
1:22-cv-01022
| E.D. Wis. | Jan 5, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Ruthes C. Holeyfield is a pro se inmate at the Milwaukee County Jail who brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
- The court screened and dismissed Holeyfield’s amended complaint on December 8, 2022 for failure to state a claim.
- On December 27, 2022 Holeyfield filed three post-judgment motions: (1) motion for a certificate of appealability, (2) motion for reconsideration, and (3) motion to appoint counsel.
- Holeyfield argued he had a misunderstanding and regretted not following the court’s instructions when drafting the amended complaint; he also complained the dismissal constituted a strike.
- The court denied all three motions: a certificate of appealability was unnecessary for a § 1983 appeal (and a blank notice of appeal form was provided); reconsideration was denied under Rule 59(e) because Holeyfield did not show a manifest error of law or new evidence; appointment of counsel was denied because the case is closed and counsel can be sought on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a certificate of appealability is required to appeal a § 1983 final order | Holeyfield requested a certificate to appeal | No certificate is required for civil § 1983 appeals; a notice of appeal suffices | Denied as unnecessary; clerk to send notice of appeal form |
| Whether to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) | Holeyfield asked reconsideration, citing a misunderstanding and regret for not following amend. complaint instructions | Court: no manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence; plaintiff ignored clear guidance and failed to cure defects | Denied: Rule 59(e) relief not warranted |
| Whether to appoint counsel post-judgment | Holeyfield asked for counsel | Court: case closed; no need for counsel in district court; counsel may be requested on appeal | Denied; plaintiff may raise counsel request on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2008) (Rule 59(e) requires showing of manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence)
- Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, Ill., 487 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2007) (standards for granting Rule 59(e) relief)
- Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601 (7th Cir. 2000) (definition of "manifest error of law")
- In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 1996) (district court’s discretion in ruling on motions to alter or amend judgment)