REAVES v. TERRE HAUTE REGIONAL HOSPITAL et al

Filing 175

Order on Pending Motions - Mr. Reaves's motion for change of judge, dkt. 167 , and motion for reconsideration, dkt. 168 , are denied. His motion for leave to file surreply, dkt. 174 , is granted, and the Court considered the arguments p resented therein in its evaluation of the motion for change of judge and motion for reconsideration. Mr. Reaves's motion for court's assistance, dkt. 173 , is granted to the extent the defendants received notice of Mr. Reaves's req uest for change of judge and responded to that request in their response to Mr. Reaves's notice of correspondence to chief justices. See dkt. 171 . Defendant Barbara Riggs's motion to join co-defendant's response, dkt. 172 , is granted. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 10/28/2020. (KAA)

Case 2:18-cv-00084-JPH-MJD Document 175 Filed 10/28/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 2046

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
DOUGLAS A. REAVES,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARBARA RIGGS, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:18-cv-00084-JPH-MJD

Order on Pending Motions
On September 30, 2020, the Court granted the motions for summary judgment filed by
defendants Nurse Archer and Nurse Riggs, granted plaintiff Douglas Reaves's request to
voluntarily dismiss the claims against three other defendants, and entered final judgment. See dkts.
164, 165. Mr. Reaves thereafter filed several motions including a motion for change of judge and
motion to reconsider. Dkts. 167, 168, 173, 174. The Court now addresses all pending motions.
I. Motion for Change of Judge
In his motion for change of judge, Mr. Reaves asks for reconsideration of the motions for
summary judgment by a different judge because he asserts the undersigned judge overlooked the
evidence and arguments submitted by the parties. Dkt. 167. This motion is understood to be a
motion to recuse.
A federal judge must recuse himself in two situations. 1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge
must disqualify himself "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). "The standard in any case for a § 455(a) recusal is whether the

1

Mr. Reaves contends that he is entitled to a change of judge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
76. See dkt. 174 at 2-3. However, there is no Rule 76 currently in effect.

Case 2:18-cv-00084-JPH-MJD Document 175 Filed 10/28/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 2047

judge's impartiality could be questioned by a reasonable, well-informed observer." In re Hatcher,
150 F.3d 631, 637 (7th Cir. 1998). In Hook v. McDade, 89 F.3d 350, 354 (7th Cir. 1996), the court
stated that § 455(a) "asks whether a reasonable person perceives a significant risk that the judge
will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits. This is an objective inquiry."
Under § 455(b)(1), a judge must recuse himself if "he has a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party." To disqualify a judge under this provision, the party must prove bias "by
compelling evidence" and "[t]he bias or prejudice must be grounded in some personal animus or
malice that the judge harbors . . . of a kind that a fair-minded person could not entirely set aside
when judging certain persons or causes." Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. John Labatt, Ltd., 299 F.3d
635, 640 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Reaves's motion satisfies neither of these requirements. Accordingly, the motion for
change of judge, dkt. [167], is denied.
II. Motion to Reconsider
Mr. Reaves also seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order on the motions for summary
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Dkt. 168, 169. To receive relief under Rule
59(e), the moving party "must clearly establish (1) that the court committed a manifest error of
law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment." Edgewood Manor
Apartment Homes, LLC v. RSUI Indem. Co., 733 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation
omitted).
Mr. Reaves contends that the Court committed manifest error. Dkt. 168 at 2. A "manifest
error" means "the district court commits a wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to
recognize controlling precedent." Stragapede v. City of Evanston, Ill, 865 F.3d 861, 868 (7th Cir.
2017) (internal quotation omitted). "A manifest error is not demonstrated by the disappointment

2

Case 2:18-cv-00084-JPH-MJD Document 175 Filed 10/28/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 2048

of the losing party." Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal
quotations omitted). Because motions for reconsideration are "not an appropriate forum for
rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the
pendency of the previous motion," Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90
F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir. 1996), they should be used only in rare circumstances, such as where
"the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues
presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension,"
or where there has been "a controlling or significant change in the law or facts since the submission
of the issue to the Court." Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191
(7th Cir. 1990) (quotation omitted).
Although Mr. Reaves presents several challenges to the Court's consideration of the
motions for summary judgment, his arguments display mere disagreement with the Court's
analysis of the evidence and arguments presented. Despite Mr. Reaves's assertions to the contrary,
the Court engaged in an extensive review of all of the evidence and arguments submitted by the
parties when evaluating the motions for summary judgment. The Court has also considered the
arguments presented in Mr. Reaves's motion to reconsider, and it concludes that he has not "clearly
establish[ed] . . . that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact." See Edgewood Manor
Apartment Homes, LLC, 773 F.3d at 770. Thus, Mr. Reaves's motion for reconsideration,
dkt. [168], is denied.
III. Conclusion
Mr. Reaves's motion for change of judge, dkt. [167], and motion for reconsideration,
dkt. [168], are denied. His motion for leave to file surreply, dkt. [174], is granted, and the Court
considered the arguments presented therein in its evaluation of the motion for change of judge and

3

Case 2:18-cv-00084-JPH-MJD Document 175 Filed 10/28/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 2049

motion for reconsideration. Mr. Reaves's motion for court's assistance, dkt. [173], is granted to
the extent the defendants received notice of Mr. Reaves's request for change of judge and
responded to that request in their response to Mr. Reaves's notice of correspondence to chief
justices. See dkt. 171.
Defendant Barbara Riggs's motion to join co-defendant's response, dkt. [172], is granted.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 10/28/2020

4

Case 2:18-cv-00084-JPH-MJD Document 175 Filed 10/28/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 2050

Distribution:
DOUGLAS A. REAVES
881987
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Alex Maurice Beeman
REMINGER CO. LPA (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
Douglass R. Bitner
KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C.
[e-mail]
David C. Dickmeyer
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
Marley Genele Hancock
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
Rachel D. Johnson
KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C.
[e-mail]
Ronald A. Mingus
REMINGER CO. LPA (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]

5