DUKES v. COX et al

Filing 310

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 307 Motion to Reconsider. The deadlines set forth in the Amended Final Pretrial Order, [Filing No. 304], remain in effect, subject to the two-week extension the Court already granted, [Filing No. 306]. The first d eadlines fall on April 17, 2015. The final pretrial conference remains scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on May 15, 2015, and the jury trial remains scheduled to begin on June 8, 2015. A copy of this entry is being emailed to Ms. Dukes to ensure its timely receipt, given the impending deadlines. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/16/2015. Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail. (BGT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
THERESA L. DUKES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SGT. ERIC COX, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:09-cv-1440-JMS-DML

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
On April 2, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part a request by pro se Plaintiff
Theresa Dukes to vacate the presently scheduled final pretrial conference, trial date, and various
associated deadlines. [Filing No. 306.] Specifically, the Court found that Mr. Dukes had shown
good cause to extend certain filing deadlines by two weeks, but it denied her request to vacate the
currently scheduled final pretrial conference or jury trial. [Filing No. 306.]
Presently pending before the Court is Ms. Dukes’ Motion to Reconsider. [Filing No. 307
(asking Court to reconsider Filing No. 306).] Ms. Dukes asserts that she has been in communication with two different law firms that may be able to represent her if the jury trial presently scheduled for June 8, 2015, is continued until this fall. [Filing No. 307 at 1-2.] Thus, Ms. Dukes requests
that her final pretrial date, trial date, and all associated deadlines be rescheduled for this fall to
allow her the time necessary to obtain counsel, given the alleged complexity of her case and her
health concerns. [Filing No. 307 at 2-6.]
Defendants have filed a Joint Objection to Ms. Dukes’ request. [Filing No. 309.] They
detail the lengthy procedural history of this case, which Ms. Dukes began in November 2009 by
representing herself pro se for seven months. [Filing No. 309 at 1-5.] Defendants ask the Court

-1-

to deny Ms. Dukes’ Motion to Reconsider because the Court has adequately addressed the considerations at issue. [Filing No. 309 at 5-6.] The Defendants emphasize that the Court has previously
stated that there will be no additional continuances and that they continue to suffer prejudice with
each delay. [Filing No. 309 at 6.]
“Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus.,
Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996). They are not a way to introduce new evidence that could
have been introduced earlier, and disposition of such a motion is left to the Court’s discretion. Id.
“Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments.” Id. at
1270.
Ms. Dukes’ Motion to Reconsider primarily rehashes arguments that the Court has previously addressed. She contends that she has new evidence of two law firms that may be able to
represent her if her trial is continued to this fall, but the Court has already considered that issue on
multiple occasions, including the Order that Ms. Dukes asks the Court to reconsider:
The Court has already balanced the competing interests at hand—namely, the
lengthy history of delay in this case due to Ms. Dukes’ health issues, this Court’s
duty to litigants to keep its calendar current and not let a case languish indefinitely,
serial withdrawal of Ms. Dukes’ prior counsel, and the Defendants’ interest in the
claims against them being resolved sooner rather than later—and found that this
case must be reopened and proceed to trial.
[Filing No. 306 (citing Filing No. 265 (issued April 2014)).] Ms. Dukes’ Motion to Reconsider
again asks this Court to weigh these competing interests and vacate the presently scheduled final
pretrial conference or trial date. This is beyond the scope of a proper motion to reconsider. In any
event, Ms. Dukes simply presents a possibility of future representation, and that possibility does
not outweigh the factors noted by the Court in reopening the case and setting a firm trial date.

-2-

For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Ms. Dukes’ Motion to Reconsider. [Filing No. 307.] The deadlines set forth in the Amended Final Pretrial Order, [Filing No. 304], remain
in effect, subject to the two-week extension the Court already granted, [Filing No. 306]. The first
deadlines fall on April 17, 2015. The final pretrial conference remains scheduled for 9:00 a.m.
on May 15, 2015, and the jury trial remains scheduled to begin on June 8, 2015. A copy of this
entry is being emailed to Ms. Dukes to ensure its timely receipt, given the impending deadlines.

April 16, 2015

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via Electronic Mail:
[e-mail]
Distribution via US Mail:
THERESA L. DUKES
P.O. Box 141
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Distribution via ECF only:
Kelly J. Pautler
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
April Ann Wilson
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
Daniel Joseph Layden
WILLIAMS BARRETT & WILKOWSKI, LLP
[e-mail]
William W. Barrett
WILLIAMS HEWITT BARRETT & WILKOWSKI LLP
[e-mail]
-3-