Simpson, Willie v. Kaul, Joshua et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WILLIE C. SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSHUA KAUL, ANDREA L. OMANSON
PAULA STOUDT, D. GOFF, S. ELLIS, ELLEN RAY,
JADEN MCCULLICK, DANIEL LEFFLER,
JULIE PAYNE, CO FREDRICK, THOMAS TAYLOR,
CO TURNER, CO HALVERSON, CO JOHNSTON,
CO VANHAUEN, C. TOM, CO KROPP,
SGT. MAZZENNETTE, SGT. SHERMAN, CO ROSE,
CO KLATT, CO BUZZELLI, and A. TITLBACH,
Defendants.
ORDER
25-cv-994-jdp
WILLIE C. SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
TONY EVERS, JARED HOY, PAULA STOUDT,
JADEN L. MCCULLICK, and JOSHUA KAUL,
Defendants.
ORDER
26-cv-25-jdp
WILLIE C. SIMPSON,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN PAULA STOUDT,
Respondent.
ORDER
26-cv-44-jdp
Willie Simpson, proceeding without counsel, filed these three lawsuits complaining of
conditions at WSPF and that he is being imprisoned unlawfully because the criminal statutes
Case: 3:25-cv-00994-jdp Document #: 10 Filed: 03/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
under which he was convicted were later repealed. I dismissed each of these cases under filing
bars issued by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Dkt. 5 in Case No. 25-cv-994-jdp
(citing Simpson v. Litscher, No. 20-3293, 2021 WL 2206439 (7th Cir. Mar. 19, 2021) (barring
Simpson from filing any papers except habeas petitions and motions in criminal cases until he
pays $1,000 fine); Simpson v. Boughton, No. 23-2638 (7th Cir. Sept. 18, 2023) (barring him
from filing any collateral attack on his Wisconsin criminal convictions or sentences until he
pays $1,500 fine)).
Simpson now moves to alter or amend the judgments in these cases under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e). To win on this motion, Simpson “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). Simpson does not meet this standard so I will deny his motion.
Simpson doesn’t argue that I incorrectly applied the court of appeals’ filing-bar
sanctions orders. Rather, he argues that I disregarded his right to a jury trial by dismissing the
cases under those sanctions orders; he appears to believe that the sanctions orders themselves
are unconstitutional. None of the authorities he cites support that proposition, which is
unsurprising because sanctions orders of this kind have never been found unconstitutional.
And in any event, this district court cannot overrule the court of appeals’ sanctions decisions.
Case: 3:25-cv-00994-jdp Document #: 10 Filed: 03/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgments in these cases,
Dkt. 5 in Case No. 25-cv-994-jdp, is DENIED.
Entered March 27, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00994-jdp Document #: 10 Filed: 03/27/26 Page 3 of 3