TAYLOR v. VAISVILAS et al

Filing 27

ENTRY denying 25 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Reconsideration - The plaintiff has asked the court to reconsider its ruling denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff's motion to reconsider 25 is denied. (SEE ENTRY). (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/7/2012. (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JOSEPH TAYLOR,
v.

Plaintiff,

ROSE VAISVILAS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-1436-JMS-DKL

ENTRY
The plaintiff has asked the court to reconsider its ruling denying his motion
for a preliminary injunction. “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 . . . .” Patel v. Gonzales 442 F.3d 1011, 1015-1016 (7th
Cir. 2006).
The plaintiff argues that the court overlooked pages of medical evidence
attached to his complaint, and incorporated by reference in his motion, that show
his need for the preliminary injunction. Even if incorporation by reference were an
appropriate manner for presenting evidence, which it is not, a review of the docket
reveals no such medical evidence. Further, the court’s additional reasons for
denying the motion stand alone: (1) Dr. Wolfe, the defendant against whom the
plaintiff seeks the injunction, has not yet appeared and (2) the court must be
hesitant in interfering with the day-to-day management of the prison. For these
reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider [25] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

02/07/2012
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Joseph Taylor
No. 905002
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
All electronically registered counsel

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