Carlborg v. Mount View Care Center

• Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
• Decided: November 30, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01527
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

LUDMYLA CARLBORG, as Administrator and Sole Beneficiary of deceased Kenneth Carlborg’s Estate,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-C-1527

MOUNT VIEW CARE CENTER,

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Ludmyla Carlborg, as Administrator and Sole Beneficiary of the Estate of Kenneth Carlborg, brought this action against Defendant Mount View Care Center. On November 16, 2023, the court screened the complaint and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Rule 59(e) allows a court to alter or amend a judgment only if the plaintiff “can demonstrate a manifest error of law or present newly discovered evidence.” Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). A manifest error is the “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). A plaintiff must “clearly establish” that she is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.2d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Plaintiff alleged that, on July 21, 2022, her husband brought a medical malpractice action against Defendant in Marathon County Circuit Court. Her husband passed away on October 16, 2022, and the circuit court dismissed the case on May 22, 2023, finding that no party was timely substituted for her husband. The circuit court entered final judgment on June 28, 2023. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on July 5, 2023, which was dismissed on September 7, 2023. Plaintiff then filed a petition for review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court on October 10, 2023. The Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review on October

27, 2023, finding that Plaintiff “may not represent the Estate in her own personal capacity or capacity as personal representative because that would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.” Compl. at 5, Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint in this case did not contain any allegations against Defendant. Instead, she asserted that her “constitutional right to plead and conduct her own case personally under 28 U.S.C. § 1654 was violated” and requested that this court “set aside the orders of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court.” Id. This court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff contends that she is not seeking to overturn the state court judgments but rather is seeking “this district court’s assistance in upholding her constitutional right to plead and conduct her own case personally” so that she can appeal the

Marathon Circuit Court’s decision. Dkt. No. 4. But as the court explained in it’s November 16, 2023 screening order, “[a]n action in federal court that alleges an injury ‘inextricably intertwined’ with a state court decision, such that success in the federal court would require overturning the state court decision, is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.” Epps v. Creditnet, Inc., 320 F.3d 756, 759 (7th Cir. 2003). In any event, Plaintiff has not established that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 with respect to Defendant, and even if she had, she has failed to state a claim against Defendant because her complaint contains no allegations against it. In short, Plaintiff has not offered any factual or legal argument that convinces the court that its November 16, 2023 screening order was in error. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED. SO ORDERED at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 30th day of November, 2023. s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach United States District Judge