KIM v. STATE OF INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL et al

Filing 217

Entry Concerning Selected Matters - Plaintiff's 210 Motion to Reverse Court's Own Order, 211 Demand the Correction of Input and 212 Second Motion to Reverse Court's Own Order are DENIED. **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/16/2011. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
KAY KIM,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAURA RITTER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:08-cv-1644-TWP-DML

Entry Concerning Selected Matters
Before the Court are Plaintiffs Supplement Motion to Reverse Court’s Own Order (Dkt.
210), Plaintiffs Demand for Correction of Input of Plaintiff’s Document and Re-Rule on
Document (Dkt. 211) and Plaintiffs (second) Supplement Motion to Reverse Court’s Own Order.
The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are pending, makes the
following rulings:
1.

On March 5, 2010, a Motion to Dismiss IMPD Officer Gregory Wilkes was granted

by Judge Barker, based on the court’s finding that a plausible claim for relief was not asserted
against this Defendant. The Plaintiff’s supplement motions to reverse the ruling [dkt 210 and dkt
212] merely recount the disposition of a criminal action brought against the Plaintiff in an Indiana
state court. However, neither the recitation of what occurred in the criminal case nor any other
portion of the motions set forth a persuasive reason for reinstating the claim against Officer
Wilkes. See Patel v. Gonzales 442 F.3d 1011, 1015-1016 (7th Cir. 2006) (“A motion to reconsider
asks that a decision be reexamined in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or an
argument that was overlooked earlier . . . .”). The supplemental motions to reverse [dkt 210 and dkt
212] are therefore DENIED.
This ruling is made with full awareness of the Plaintiff’s petition to reverse filed on June
14, 2010, and the ruling made on such motion on November 30, 2010.

2.

The Plaintiff’s “Motion to Demand the Correction of Input of Plaintiff’s Document

and Re-Rule on Docketed #209” appears to ask this court to adjust the docketed date of Dkt. # 209
and to issue an additional or different ruling on Dkt. # 209. In light of the ruling made in
paragraph 1 of this Entry, [dkt 211] is DENIED as unwarranted .

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

09/16/2011

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Kay Kim
4250 Village Parkway Circle, Apt. #2
Indianapolis, IN 46254