TAYLOR v. VAISVILAS et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 63 Plaintiff's Motion To Alter - The request for reconsideration 63 is denied, because the court properly screened the operative pleading and no persuasive basis for reconsidering that ruling has been shown. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/10/2013. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)

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

Plaintiff,

CORIZON, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-1436-JMS-DKL

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).
The plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Entry and Notice issued on
November 19, 2012. That Entry found that the operative pleading setting forth
Taylor’s claims is the amended complaint filed on October 5, 2012. That amended
complaint completely replaced and superseded the plaintiff’s prior pleadings. See
Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir. 1999). In addition, the court held
that the amended complaint filed on October 5, 2012, could proceed as submitted,
with the exception of the claim brought pursuant to the Indiana Constitution
consistent with the Entry of October 5, 2012. All three of the defendants identified
in the amended complaint (including Dr. William H. Wolfe, Corizon, Inc., and
Pharma Corr) have appeared in this action and filed an answer. See dkt. 56. A
scheduling order was issued on November 27, 2012.

The request for reconsideration [63] is denied, because the court properly
screened the operative pleading and no persuasive basis for reconsidering that
ruling has been shown.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

01/10/2013
Date: _____________________
Distribution:
Joseph A. Taylor
DOC # 905002
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
All Electronically Registered Counsel

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