Martin v Teusch et al

Filing 185

OPINION AND ORDER denying 178 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Anthony C Martin. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 8/4/2011. (kjm) Modified on 8/5/2011 (kjm).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
Anthony C. Martin,
Plaintiff,
v.
Matthew Teusch, Jason Ward, Indiana State
Police, Fort Wayne Officer Gerardot, Fort
Wayne Officer Hoffman, Allen County
Officers Cook, Petrie, Thomas, Wymer,
Unknown Allen County Booking Officers,
Allen County Sherriff’s Department
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:09-CV-321 JVB

OPINION AND ORDER
On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s order granting
Defendants partial summary judgment on July 14, 2011. It is unclear on what specific grounds
Plaintiff desires the Court to review its decision, though he generally alleges the Court did not
draw inferences in his favor when ruling on Summary Judgment motions, and makes general
allegations of discovery abuse against the Defendants. He asks the Court to reverse its earlier
ruling and reinstate all his claims disposed of by summary judgment.
Although motions for reconsideration are not specifically authorized by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Seventh Circuit and this district apply Rule 59(e) standards to these
motions. Wagner v. Nutrasweet Co., 873 F. Supp. 87, 101–02 (N.D. Ill. 1994); see also Quaker
Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 n.9 (N.D. Ill. 1988). The Seventh
Circuit has discussed the role of the motion to reconsider:

A motion for reconsideration performs a valuable function where the Court has
patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial
issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning
but of apprehension. A further basis for a motion to reconsider would be a
controlling or significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the
issue to the Court.

Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)
(citations omitted).
However useful motions for reconsideration may be, the problems that justify such
motions “rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.” Id. Motions for
reconsideration “are not at the disposal of parties who want to ‘rehash’ old arguments . . . and
such motions are not appropriate vehicles for introducing evidence that could have been
produced prior to the entry of judgment or for tendering new legal theories for the first time.”
Wagner, 873 F. Supp. at 101–02 (citations omitted).
In his motion to reconsider, Plaintiff does not present any new facts that were not
available earlier nor any new law so as to compel a reconsideration of the Court’s
decision. Nor has Plaintiff shown that the Court has patently misunderstood him, or has
made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented by the parties. The Court will not
“rehash” old arguments. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [DE 178] is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED on August 4, 2011.

s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen_______
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2