COLLINS v. WEBSTER et al

Filing 152

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 135 Motion; denying Plaintiff's 136 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying Plaintiff's 137 Motion for Leave to File. (Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/27/2012. (NB) Modified on 6/27/2012 (NB).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
BOBBY RAY COLLINS,
v.

Plaintiff,

THOMAS WEBSTER, M.D., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:10-CV-172-JMS-WGH

Entry Concerning Selected Matters
The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are
pending, makes the following rulings:
1.
The plaintiff’s filing entitled “plaintiff’s motion pursuant to L.R. 5.1”
[135] is denied. Local Rule 5-1 provides rules regarding the format of papers
presented for filing and does not provide any authority for the relief the plaintiff
seeks, that is “to take judicial intervention to either seal, or lock, or administrative
order the Clerk to terminate the third claim of his First Amended Complaint under
cause number 2:09-cv-247-WTL-TAB.” Dkt. 135. The action just mentioned is
closed. No change in the pleadings in that case can be brought about through a
filing in this case.
2.
The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 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). The plaintiff seeks
reconsideration of the rulings in the April 4, 2012, Entry (dkt 129). The request for
reconsideration [136] is denied, because the court made a correct ruling on the
plaintiff’s motion to strike and no persuasive basis for reconsidering that ruling has
been shown. Any other relief thought to be sought in this motion is denied.
3.
The plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended pleading [137] is
denied. It appears that the plaintiff seeks “permission for leave to file (reproduce)
his Amended Motion to Strike.” Such a step is unnecessary. First, a motion to strike
is not a pleading as defined by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7(a). Second, the
plaintiff’s apparent purpose in filing an amended motion to strike is to ultimately

amend the pleadings in 2:09-cv-247-WTL-TAB. As stated in paragraph number 1
above, that action is closed and no change in the pleadings in that case can be
brought about through a filing in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

06/27/2012
Date: __________________

Distribution:
Jeffrey L. Hunter
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
[e-mail]
Bobby Ray Collins
No. 27382-077
Lewisburg U.S. Penitentiary
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 1000
Lewisburg, PA 17837

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