Ralph H. Jurjens, III v. Justin S. Ribault

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied Ralph H. Jurjens, III’s motion for reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment to Dr. Justin Ribault on Jurjens’s Eighth Amendment medical-care claim. The court concluded that Jurjens identified neither newly discovered evidence nor a manifest error of law or fact, and that his arguments concerning discovery and allegedly inaccurate medical records did not warrant reconsideration.

Holdings

1. The motion for reconsideration was properly denied because Jurjens presented neither newly discovered evidence nor a manifest error of law or fact.
2. The court did not commit a manifest error by treating Jurjens's motion to compel as moot after granting summary judgment and by declining to further extend summary-judgment briefing.
3. Allegations that the underlying medical records inaccurately described an overdose did not warrant reconsideration because Jurjens presented no new evidence that the records or evidence had been fabricated or were inaccurate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jurjens's motion for reconsideration satisfied the applicable Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) standard.
2. Whether the court committed a manifest error by refusing to extend summary-judgment briefing based on Jurjens's late discovery motion.
3. Whether alleged inaccuracies or falsity in medical-record evidence warranted reconsideration of summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim.

Disposition

other