Peters v. Rauner et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SCOTT PETERS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CLINT TANNER, MEGAN VANPELT,
VIRGINIA CHENG, TRAVIS JAMES,
MORGAN WALKER, SHELBY HUEY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:20-cv-689-DWD
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Before the Court are pro se Plaintiff’s various post-judgment filings, including (1) a
Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 (Doc. 202); (2) an Objection and
Motion to Show Cause for Litigant’s Attorneys to Appear and Explain the Failure to
Comply with Common Law (Doc. 211); (3) a Statement of Additional Facts in Support of
the Motion under Rule 59 (Doc. 213); and (4) a Notice and Motion of Objection by
Interference and Request for Evidentiary Hearing, which was purportedly filed in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and Supreme Court precedent (Doc.
214). Defendants filed Responses to certain of these filings. (Docs. 209 & 217). Further,
Plaintiff filed a Reply in Support of the Motion under Rule 59. (Doc. 212). For the reasons
explained below, Plaintiff’s Motions and Objections are DENIED and OVERRULED.
I. BACKGROUND
Following a review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court found the
following claim could proceed against Defendants James, Cheng, Walker, Tanner, and
Case 3:20-cv-00689-DWD Document 219 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
VanPelt under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference
toward Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (Docs. 11; 15, pg. 3). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Complaint against various Defendants. Ultimately, the Court added
Defendant Huey, among others, to the Eighth Amendment claim. (Doc. 103, pg. 2). That
claim persisted against Defendants James, Cheng, Walker, Tanner, VanPelt, and Huey.
Plaintiff, who was an inmate at Menard Correctional Center, allegedly suffers from
serious physical and psychological issues that resulted in a finding of one hundred
percent disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs. (Docs. 11 & 96). He was
previously treated with benzodiazepines for his pain, arthritis, and psychological issues.
(Docs. 11 & 96). However, beginning in July 2018, and continuing through at least
November 2018, Defendants allegedly stopped providing his medication and failed to
follow a taper-down process to minimize or reduce his withdrawals. (Docs. 11 & 96).
More specifically, on approximately July 22, 2018, Defendant James allegedly
allowed the discontinuance of Plaintiff’s prescription for Klonopin without an acceptable
weening period. (Docs. 11 & 96). Defendant Cheng allegedly refused to restart that
prescription at a full dosage. (Docs. 11 & 96). On August 3, 2018, however, Defendant
Cheng renewed the prescription at half the original dosage, which was allegedly contrary
to medical practices. (Docs. 11 & 96). Defendants VanPelt and Huey, who are mental
health professionals, allegedly refused to treat his withdrawal symptoms. (Docs. 11 & 96).
On October 25, 2018, Plaintiff saw Defendant Walker who allegedly “immediately
began to deny him his effective medication anew.” (Doc. 11). Thereafter, on November
27, 2018, “Plaintiff would…see Dr. Tanner who continued the denial of his effective
Case 3:20-cv-00689-DWD Document 219 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
medication, starting the process anew.” (Doc. 11). As a result of the denials of medication,
Plaintiff allegedly experienced general pain, chest pain, gastrointestinal distress, muscle
tightness 	and 	aches, 	difficulty 	breathing, 	profuse 	sweating, 	blurry 	vision, 	light
sensitivity, 	anxiety, 	panic 	attacks, 	excited 	delirium, 	increased 	aggression, 	stress,
hallucinations, shaking, sleep apnea, detachment, and agitation. (Docs. 11 & 96).
On January 8, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 187
& 188). Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel assigned by the Court, filed a Response
in Opposition to that Motion for Summary Judgment on February 7, 2025. (Doc. 189). On
February 21, 2025, Defendants filed a Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. 190). The Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on
September 8, 2025. (Doc. 197). Judgment was entered on September 9, 2025. (Doc. 198).
II. ANALYSIS
Now, the Court may alter or amend its judgment under Rule 59(e) if Plaintiff has
clearly established either a manifest error of law or fact or presents newly discovered
evidence. See Beyah v. Murphy, 825 F. Supp. 213, 214 (E.D. Wisc. 1993); accord Bradley v.
Wisconsin Dep’t of Children and Families, No. 20-cv-661, 2021 WL 363970, *1 (E.D. Wisc. Feb.
3, 2021). A manifest error is not demonstrated by the disappointment of Plaintiff; instead,
he or she must show the Court’s wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to
recognize controlling legal precedent. See Bradley, 2021 WL 363970 at *1 (quoting Oto v.
Metro Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000)). Moreover, “a motion to alter or amend
a judgment [under Rule 59(e)] is not appropriately used to advance arguments or theories
that could and should have been made before the district court rendered a judgment, or
Case 3:20-cv-00689-DWD Document 219 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
to present evidence that was available earlier.” LB Credit Corp. v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 49
F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted); accord Sigsworth v. City of
Aurora, Ill., 487 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, it is clear that Rule 59(e)
performs its valuable function when the Court patently misunderstood a party, made a
decision outside the issues, or made an error of apprehension rather than reasoning.
See County Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 436 F. Supp. 2d 997, 999 (W.D. Wisc. 2006)
(citing Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F. 2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)).
Here, notwithstanding the arguments presented by Plaintiff in his pro se Motion
under Rule 59(e) and Statement of Additional Facts, which the Court has fully considered
together with the responsive arguments of Defendants, the Court adheres to its prior
summary judgment ruling in its entirety. Plaintiff has not demonstrated, in any way, that
it is appropriate for the Court to alter or amend the Judgment under the above-discussed
authorities. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 59 (Doc. 202) is DENIED.
The Court also has no basis on which to grant or sustain the other pro se Motions
or Objections. (Docs. 211 & 214). Indeed, they completely lack merit or are procedurally
improper. As a result, the Motions or Objections are DENIED and OVERRULED.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s Motions and Objections are DENIED
and OVERRULED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 13, 2026 	__________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
s/ David W. Dugan
Case 3:20-cv-00689-DWD Document 219 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>