DAVIS v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, et al

Filing 38

Entry Discussing Motion to Reconsider - Accordingly, the false arrest claim was properly dismissed and the motion to reconsider [dkt 32] is denied. **SEE ORDER** Copy to Defendant via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/27/2016. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MAJOR P. DAVIS, II,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, OFFICER
NICHOLAS GALLICO, ESTATE OF
OFFICER PERRY RENN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-00090-TWP-MPB

Entry Discussing Motion to Reconsider
Before the Court is Plaintiff Major Davis’ Motion to Reconsider the dismissal of his false
arrest claim. [Dkt. No, 32 ].
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
Davis mistakenly argues his false arrest claim should not have been dismissed because
probable cause was not found by a judicial officer. The court records which Davis filed in support
of his motion to reconsider show that probable cause was found by Richard Hagenmaier, a judicial
officer with Marion Superior Court, on July 6, 2014, while Mr. Davis was at Eskenazi Hospital.

Case No. 49G02-1407-MC-034251. See Flournoy v. Winnebago Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 622 F. App'x
584, 585 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Fleming v. Livingston Cnty., Ill., 674 F.3d 874, 878 (7th Cir. 2012)
(noting that existence of probable cause forecloses Fourth Amendment claim alleging false arrest);
Morfin v. City of E. Chicago, 349 F.3d 989, 997 (7th Cir. 2003) (same)). The allegations in the
complaint reflect that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. In addition, none of the
named defendants were personally responsible for the arrest of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the false arrest claim was properly dismissed and the motion to reconsider
[dkt 32] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 9/27/2016

Distribution:
All Electronically Registered Counsel
MAJOR P. DAVIS, II
249215
INDIANA STATE PRISON
INDIANA STATE PRISON
Inmate Mail/Parcels
One Park Row
MICHIGAN CITY, IN 46360

2