JAMES v. GEO GROUP, INC. et al

Filing 48

Entry Discussing Motion to Reconsider: DENIED 41 Motion to Reconsider ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 9/29/2010. (DWH)

JAMES v. GEO GROUP, INC. et al

Doc. 48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA THOMAS M. JAMES, Plaintiff, vs. DR. ELI LORENZO, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:09-cv-1204-WTL-TAB

Entry Discussing Motion to Reconsider A motion to reconsider is designed to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Publishers Resource, Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publications, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1985). For example, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate when: (1) a court has patently misunderstood a party; (2) a court has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented; (3) a court has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension; or (4) a change in the law or facts has occurred since the submission of the issue. On the other hand, a motion for reconsideration is an "improper vehicle to introduce evidence previously available or to tender new legal theories." Bally Export Corp. v. Balicar, Ltd., 804 F.2d 398, 404 (7th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff Thomas M. James seeks reconsideration of the rulings in the Entry of July 30, 2010. This request (dkt 41) is denied. First of all, the dismissal of legally insufficient claims was mandatory pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002). Secondly, James has shown no sound basis on which the dismissal of such claims could be reconsidered. 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 . . . ."). In other words, the claims dismissed as legally insufficient were properly understood and dismissed. Finally, James is notified that if during the course of discovery he is able to identify a person previously named as "all others acting in concert," "ABC-XYZ Corp." or "all black and white entities A-Z" nothing in the Entry of July 30, 2010, prohibits him from timely seeking to amend the complaint to include such person(s) pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________________ Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Date: 09/29/2010

Dockets.Justia.com

Distribution: Thomas M. James 98106 Arizona State Prison ASPC-Douglas Mohaue North P.O. Box 5002 Douglas, AZ 85608 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]