Jason Allen Olrich v. C.O. Bogdala, Josh Kaul, Jared Hoy, Tony Evers, Lynn Adelman, Gerad Dougvillo, Heather Iverson, Department of Corrections, State of Wisconsin, Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution, David Beth, David Zoerner, City of Kenosha, Kenosha County, Kenosha County Sheriff's Department, Kenosha County Jail, Kenosha County Detention Center, Kenosha Police Department, Kenosha Detective Bureau, District Attorneys of Kenosha, Michael D. Gravely, Robert Zapf, Jeffrey Crall, Xavier Solis, Brian Hayes, T. Swadly, C.O. Moore, Captain Putcher, Deputy Lanctot, Deputy Booth, Deputy Tritschler, Detective Schreiner, Detective Swanson, Detective Johnson, Preece Frank ALEX, Ice Malchow, Text Behind, Sgt.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JASON ALLEN OLRICH,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 25-CV-1933-JPS 7th Cir. Case No. 26-1202 C.O. BOGDALA, JOSH KAUL, JARED HOY, TONY EVERS, LYNN ADELMAN, GERAD DOUGVILLO, HEATHER IVERSON, ORDER DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF WISCONSIN, KETTLE MORAINE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, DAVID BETH, DAVID ZOERNER, CITY OF KENOSHA, KENOSHA COUNTY, KENOSHA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, KENOSHA COUNTY JAIL, KENOSHA COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, KENOSHA POLICE DEPARTMENT, KENOSHA DETECTIVE BUREAU, DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF KENOSHA, MICHAEL D. GRAVELY, ROBERT ZAPF, JEFFREY CRALL, XAVIER SOLIS, BRIAN HAYES, T. SWADLY, C.O. MOORE, CAPTAIN PUTCHER, DEPUTY LANCTOT, DEPUTY BOOTH, DEPUTY TRITSCHLER, DETECTIVE SCHREINER, DETECTIVE SWANSON, DETECTIVE JOHNSON, PREECE FRANK ALEX, ICE MALCHOW, TEXT BEHIND, SGT. KLAHAN, ANN HOFFMANN, CANDICE ANDRYCHOWICZ, WARDEN TASSLER, WARDEN GEIRACH, and WARDEN NOBLE,

Defendants. Plaintiff Jason Allen Orlich, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing himself pro se, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983. ECF No. 1. On December 22, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full on or before January 12, 2026. ECF No. 9. The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to timely pay the filing fee would result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. Id. On January 23, 2026, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice and entered judgment accordingly for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee. ECF Nos. 12, 13. On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. ECF No. 15. On May 22, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration asking the Court to accept his amended complaint. ECF No. 29. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) empowers a court to alter or amend a judgment on motion by a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A party may file a motion to alter or amend judgment “no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The party seeking relief under this Rule must establish “a manifest error of law or present newly discovered evidence.” Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008). Whether to grant a motion to amend a judgment “is entrusted to the sound judgment of the district court,” In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996), but the movant must first “clearly establish” his right to relief, Romo v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 250 F.3d 1119, 1122 n.3 (7th Cir. 2001). A party may file a motion for relief from a judgment or order under certain circumstances that include “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” or “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6). “Appeal, not reconsideration, is the time to deal with the majority of legal errors,” and only “manifest errors . . . so obvious that no additional explanation is needed or possible” are proper subjects of a Rule 59 motion. Burney v. Thorn Ams., Inc., 970 F. Supp. 668, 671 (E.D. Wis. 1997). Such error “is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party” but instead by “the ‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.’” Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)). Here, Plaintiff’s request does not meet the high burden necessary to succeed. Many months after the Court closed his case, Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint and proceed with the case because he belatedly paid the filing fee. Plaintiff is a prolific filer in this district and recently had a filing bar imposed upon him in another case. See 25-CV-2029-LA, ECF No. 11. Plaintiff was given the opportunity to proceed with his case and did not timely prosecute it or request an extension of time. As such, the Court is obliged to deny Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 29, be and the same is hereby DENIED. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 8th day of June, 2026. BY THE COURT: AAV ye RO J.P. sti aueller U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3