Harris v. Ryker et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 24 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 10/30/2012. (mab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WARDEN RYKER,WARDEN HODGE,
)
WARDEN CAMPANELLA, DONALD
)
GAETZ, TERRY G. WADKINS, BRETT
)
A. KLINDWORTH, CAROL McBRIDE,
)
LT. RUNYUN, DANNY ALLEN,
)
RICHARD A. BOWERMAN,
)
LT.BRADLEY, LT. WILLIAMS,
WARDEN SWARTZ, BARNEY HUGHES, )
LARRY G. HARRIS, #N-57672,

CIVIL NO. 11-648-GPM

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a motion to reconsider (Doc. 24) filed by Plaintiff, Mr.
Larry G. Harris, who is currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”).
This case initially came before the Honorable Michael J. Reagan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
in case 3:10-cv-596-MJR.

Judge Reagan’s Threshold Order articulated all of Plaintiff’s

respective claims, but severed several counts because they did not arise from the same
transaction or occurrence as the first two counts. See Larry G. Harris v. Warden Ryker, et al.,
S.D. Ill., Civil Case No.10-596-MJR (Doc. 17). Accordingly, the severed counts came before
this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for threshold review.

Page 1 of 3

After a careful review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court held that Plaintiff’s claim for a
procedural due process violation failed to state a claim for relief (Doc. 9). The Court also held
Plaintiff’s claim that transfer from Pinkneyville Correctional Center to Lawrence impinged his
constitutional rights failed to state a claim for relief (Doc. 9). Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment
claim for deprivation of property was dismissed because the State provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy (Doc. 9). The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim because it
did not state a claim for which relief can be granted (Doc. 9). Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation
survived threshold review.
Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its prior Order (See Doc. 24). The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically address motions to “reconsider.” The Seventh
Circuit has held, however, that a motion challenging the merits of a district court order will
automatically be considered as having been filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g. Mares v. Busby, 34 F.3d 533, 535 (7th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 300 (7th Cir. 1992). Where a substantive motion for
reconsideration is filed within twenty-eight days of entry of the order, the Court usually
construes these as a motion filed under Federal Rule of Procedure 59(e). Id.
Although Plaintiff’s motion is filed under Federal Rule of Procedure 52(b) and 59(b)
(Doc. 24), neither of these Rules is applicable in light of Plaintiff’s motion. A review of the
papers informs the Court that Plaintiff is concerned with the Court’s error in assessing Plaintiff’s
complaint (See Doc. 24). Since Plaintiff’s motion was filed within a timely manner, the Court
construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Procedure 59(e). Yet a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 59(e) is not “an appropriate

Page 2 of 3

forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard
during the pendency of the previous motion.” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus.,
Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 2000).
Upon review of the record, the Court remains persuaded the Court’s August 24, 2012
Order dismissing four of Plaintiff’s five claims was correct. Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 24) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 30, 2012
/s / ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3