Jurjens, Ralph v. Chatman, Jason et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RALPH H. JURJENS, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUSTIN S. RIBAULT,
Defendant.
ORDER
23-cv-88-jdp
Plaintiff Ralph H. Jurjens, III, proceeding without counsel, is currently incarcerated at
New 	Lisbon 	Correctional 	Institution. 	Jurjens 	alleges 	that 	when 	he 	was 	at 	Columbia
Correctional Institution, staff failed to adequately treat his seizure disorder. I granted summary
judgment to defendant Dr. Justin Ribault on Jurjens’s Eighth Amendment claim against him,
and I relinquished jurisdiction over Jurjens’s state-law medical malpractice claim against him.
Dkt. 83. Jurjens moves for reconsideration of that decision. Dkt. 85. I will deny that motion.
ANALYSIS
The parties dispute whether Jurjens’s motion should be considered under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b); Jurjens argues that his ability to file a Rule 59 motion within
28 days of the entry of judgment was affected by delays both in him receiving the judgment
and in mailing his motion to the court. But even assuming that the more lenient Rule 59
standard applies to Jurjens’s motion, I would deny it. To prevail under that standard Jurjens
“must present either newly discovered evidence or establish a manifest error of law or fact.”
Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000).
Case: 3:23-cv-00088-jdp Document #: 88 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Jurjens’s 	motion 	largely 	focuses 	on 	whether 	he 	timely 	served 	Ribault 	with
interrogatories and requests for production of documents. But that discovery question was
irrelevant to my summary judgment ruling; I had previously explained to Jurjens that his
motion to compel discovery concerning these requests came too late to further extend summary
judgment briefing and that Jurjens should respond to Ribault’s summary judgment motions
with the materials that he had already acquired. Dkt. 77 and Dkt. 83, at 9. Given this rationale
and my grant of summary judgment to Ribault, I denied Jurjens’s motion to compel as moot.
Nothing in Jurjens’s current motion persuades me that I was incorrect in handling his late-filed
motion to compel.
Jurjens otherwise argues that my substantive decision on his Eighth Amendment claims
was in error because defense counsel submitted “false evidence” about an overdose that he says
didn’t occur. But he doesn’t submit anything suggesting that this evidence was fabricated by
counsel. Rather, I take him to be saying that the underlying medical records didn’t accurately
recount the events of the case. He doesn’t present any new evidence supporting this argument.
He otherwise could have made this argument by opposing Ribault’s motion for summary
judgment, but he didn’t file any opposition materials. Nothing in his current motion persuades
me that I erred in granting summary judgment to Ribault. So I will deny Jurjens’s motion for
reconsideration.
Case: 3:23-cv-00088-jdp Document #: 88 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 85, is DENIED.
Entered March 30, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:23-cv-00088-jdp Document #: 88 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 3 of 3