Scott Peters v. J.B. Pritzker, Latoya Hughes, Anthony Wills, Frank Lawrence, Jolene Kuhnert, Jennifer Barker, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Kananbir Sandhu, David Eiland, Wyshnytzky, Miller, Norten, Jane Doe #1, C. Runge, Sergeant Aikens, Lieutenant Purdy, Angela Crain, Major Berneiz, Officer Walker, John Doe #1, Brunlee, Bridges, Lieutenant Calewine, Carriage, Kwame Raoul, and Jeremiah Brown

Summary

The court denied Scott Peters’s motions and objections seeking reconsideration of the denial of preliminary injunctive relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court held that Peters had not shown a basis for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), had not presented newly discovered evidence or a manifest error, and sought relief beyond the dental and ADA-related claims in his complaint. The court also noted that Peters provided insufficient evidence concerning his current medical and dental care at Lawrence Correctional Center.

Holdings

1. A motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) may be granted only when the movant demonstrates a mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence that could not previously have been discovered.
2. Rule 60(b) relief is an extraordinary remedy available only in exceptional circumstances and may not be used merely to rehash old arguments or present arguments that should have been raised earlier.
3. A request for a preliminary injunction must be tailored to the claims in the complaint and may not extend to unrelated medical conditions or claims not pleaded in the action.
4. A prisoner seeking preliminary injunctive relief must provide evidence supporting a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm; generalized allegations and hypothetical or historical medical problems are insufficient.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Peters established grounds under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) to reconsider the denial of his request for temporary or preliminary injunctive relief.
2. Whether Peters's requested injunction was properly tailored to the claims pleaded in his complaint.
3. Whether Peters demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm sufficient to justify injunctive relief.

Disposition

other