MANNS v. LECLERC, M.D. et al
Filing
79
ENTRY denying 72 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/7/2013. Copy Mailed. (JD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
GARY E. MANNS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. JACQUE LECLERC, M.D.,
KIM GRAY, LISA WOLFE,
ASHLEY WAGGLER, AMY
WRIGHT, AND DR. MITCHEFF,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:11-cv-1550-TWP-MJD
Entry Discussing Motion to Reconsider
The motion to reconsider has been considered. 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 ruling in the Entry issued on
November 9, 2012 [Dkt. 65] denying his request to file the proposed amended
complaint. The request for reconsideration [Dkt. 72] is denied, because the
court made a correct ruling on the plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint
and no persuasive basis for reconsidering that ruling has been shown.
The primary reason the plaintiff’s motion to amend was denied is that it
sought to expand the scope of the plaintiff’s claims to events occurring after he was
transferred from Wabash Valley Correctional Facility to the Indiana State Prison.
Nothing in the Entry of November 9, 2012, prohibits the plaintiff from filing a
second motion to file an amended complaint and from submitting a proposed
amended complaint which is limited to the events and circumstances surrounding
his medical treatment at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. If a second motion to
file an amended complaint is filed the court will evaluate it pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and Local Rule 15-1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
01/07/2013
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Gary E. Manns
922454
Indiana State Prison
Inmate Mail/Parcels
One Park Row
Michigan City, IN 46360
Electronically Registered Counsel
________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?