Siddiq v. Tollette et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 motion. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 10/24/2024. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
SADRUD-DIN SIDDIQ, JR
v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 4:24-cv-495-DPM

TOLLETT, Officer; BOYD, Det.;
PERICH!, Sgt.; WARD, Officer;
and CHRISTPHOR, Officer

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Siddiq' s original complaint was short on details.

The Court

ordered an amended complaint with more information about his
potential claims.

Siddiq filed an amended complaint but did not

provide sufficient information to state a claim. The Court dismissed his
case without prejudice. Siddiq moves to reconsider - now offering
details about which officers did what.
The motion, Doc. 7, is denied for two reasons. First, in general one
can't use a motion to reconsider to make arguments or offer facts that
were available but not explained before the Court entered Judgment.
Arnold v. ADT Security Services, Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir. 2010).
Second, Siddiq still has not stated a plausible claim under federal law.
He notes that various Little Rock police officers gave him the runaround and failed to investigate adequately his girlfriend's 2022
disappearance and possible kidnapping. An officer's negligence in

performing his duty, though, does not alone violate the Due Process
Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327,

328 (1986).
So Ordered.
V

D .P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2-