Jones, James v. Crawford County Jail et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMES A. JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRAWFORD COUNTY JAIL, SHERIFF DAVE
MCCULLICK, LIEUTENANT ROSS, DEPUTY NATE,
DEPUTY ALEX, CRAWFORD COUNTRY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY MARCUS PLOESSEL,
SHIFT SUPERVISOR, PRAIRIE DU CHIEN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, CHIEF OF POLICE, OFFICER JB
HEMMER, OFFICER STRNAD, SHIFT SUPERVSOR,
CROSSING RIVERS HEALTH, ER DOCTOR,
ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, INC.,
DOCTOR ROBERT CORNWELL, JAIL NURSE,
NURSE PRACTITIONER RODRIGUEZ, and JOHN
AND/OR JANE DOE(S),
Defendants.
ORDER
25-cv-349-jdp
Plaintiff James A. Jones, who is incarcerated at Redgranite Correctional Institution
(RGCI), seeks reconsideration of my order dismissing this case without prejudice for failure to
comply with court orders to submit a third amended complaint by October 28, 2025. Dkt. 18;
Doc. 20.
Jones cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), but I will evaluate Jones’s motion
under Rule 59(e) because he filed it within 28 days of my final judgment. To prevail, Jones
“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).
I take Jones to contend that I committed a manifest error of fact by concluding that he
failed to submit the third amended complaint by October 28. Jones explains that he put his
third amended complaint in a prison mailbox on October 28, and that he didn’t learn that the
Case: 3:25-cv-00349-jdp Document #: 21 Filed: 12/23/25 Page 1 of 3

2
third amended complaint hadn’t been mailed to the court until he received a copy of my order
of dismissal. See Dkt. 18 at 1; Dkt. 18-3 at 1–3. Jones suggests that RGCI staff didn’t mail his
third amended complaint to the court to retaliate against him because he has filed grievances.
See Dkt. 18 at 1–2.
Jones hasn’t shown that I committed a manifest error of fact by concluding that he
failed to submit his third amended complaint by October 28. I base this decision on two
primary considerations.
First, the court has received all Jones’s filings, with the exception of the purported third
amended complaint, without incident so far. Jones has been housed at RGCI since mid-May
2025. Before the case was dismissed, the court had received several submissions that Jones had
mailed from that prison. See Dkt. 9; Dkt. 10; Dkt. 11; Dkt. 14. After dismissal, the court also
received Jones’s Rule 59(e) motion and supporting documents even though he mailed them in
eight separate envelopes. See Dkt. 19. The court has consistently received submissions that
Jones has mailed from RGCI, so it’s highly likely that the court would have received his third
amended complaint if he had he put it in the prison mailbox on October 28 as he says.
See Dowdy v. Dodge Corr. Inst., 24-cv-198-jdp, Dkt. 11 at 2 (denying Rule 59(e) motion
contending that prison didn’t send amended pleading to the court, or that pleading was lost in
the mail, partly because the court had received several other filings from the prisoner).
Second, as in Dowdy, Jones “hasn’t provided any records from his prison substantiating
his bare assertion that he submitted the [third] amended complaint to prison authorities for
mailing on [October 28].” See id. The “[third] amended complaint bears [the date of October
28] but, because of the ease of backdating documents, that evidence isn’t compelling.” Id.
Case: 3:25-cv-00349-jdp Document #: 21 Filed: 12/23/25 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff James A. Jones’s motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 18, is
DENIED.
Entered December 22, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00349-jdp Document #: 21 Filed: 12/23/25 Page 3 of 3