United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 10, 2016*

Decided March 14, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 15-2278

JOHN G. DAHLK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MICHELLE WOOMER, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 12-CV-556

Rudolph T. Randa,

Judge.

O R D E R

John Dahlk, a Wisconsin inmate, appeals the denial of his postjudgment motion 

to set aside the grant of summary judgment against him in his civil-rights suit alleging 

deliberate indifference of prison officials. The district court denied the motion, and we 

affirm.

Dahlk sued several prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that they 

had been deliberately indifferent in treating a wound on his inner thigh. Tests revealed 

the presence of E. coli, for which he was prescribed a course of antibiotics. Dahlk

 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is 

unnecessary. The appeal is thus submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 15-2278 Page 2

faulted medical staff for not treating the wound more aggressively and for disregarding 

his allergy to penicillin. The district court granted summary judgment for the 

defendants, and we affirmed. See Dahlk v. Woomer, 592 F. App’x 523 (7th Cir. 2015).

While that appeal was pending in this court, Dahlk filed a motion under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) urging the district court to vacate its grant of summary 

judgment based on his claim that the proceedings were tainted by the defendants’ 

fraud. He attached documents purportedly showing that the affidavits submitted by the 

defendants at summary judgment contained false statements and that the defendants 

had tampered with his medical records. After we denied Dahlk’s first appeal, the 

district court denied his postjudgment motion, explaining that “there is nothing in the 

plaintiff’s submissions that undermines or changes the outcome of the case.” 

In this appeal Dahlk maintains that the defendants committed perjury and 

doctored evidence during the underlying proceedings. But he has not shown that the 

district court abused its discretion in denying his motion. A party seeking to set aside a 

judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence, 

Wickens v. Shell Oil Co., 620 F.3d 747, 759 (7th Cir. 2010), and Dahlk has fallen far short of 

that standard. He highlights trivial discrepancies among his medical records and 

defendants’ assorted submissions, but none of these supposed inconsistencies 

constitutes clear proof of fraud.

In any event, the evidence to which Dahlk points was not newly discovered. 

Under Rule 60(b)(2), evidence is “new” only if it is discovered after the litigation is over 

and judgment has been entered. See Gleash v. Yuswak, 308 F.3d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 2002); 

Bell v. Eastman Kodak Co., 214 F.3d 798, 801 (7th Cir. 2000). All of the documents he 

submitted as proof of fraud either were or could have been submitted at summary 

judgment.

Dahlk also argues that the district court erred by declining to strike the 

defendants’ response to his Rule 60(b) motion based on their failure to attach a 

certificate of service. But we give considerable deference to a district court’s decision to 

excuse harmless procedural mistakes, see Stevo v. Frasor, 662 F.3d 880, 887 (7th Cir. 

2011), and Dahlk himself conceded in his motion to strike that he still received a copy of 

the response at least three months before the district court ruled on his Rule 60(b) 

motion.

AFFIRMED.