LANE v. LANDRY

Filing 12

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (rmb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JOHN AMOS LANE,
Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT LANDRY, Superintendent
of the Maine Correctional Center,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 2:15-cv-036-NT

ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER
The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on May 28,
2015 his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 8).

The Respondent filed his

Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 9) on June 5, 2014.

I

affirmed the Recommended Decision on July 13, 2015 (ECF No. 10).
This Court has “substantial discretion and broad authority to grant or
deny” a motion for reconsideration. See Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharms., LLC,
521 F.3d 76, 81 (1st Cir. 2008). The Court may grant a motion for
reconsideration “where the movant shows a manifest error of law or newly
discovered evidence.” Id. at 81-82. Likewise, a motion for reconsideration
should be granted if the Court has “patently misunderstood” a party, or if the
court made an error “not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Id. at 82.
Without employing these standards, the Respondent merely rehashes
arguments it previously made to me.

The motion to reconsider is, therefore, DENIED. The Respondent has
indicated that it will seek summary dismissal on the merits and has
requested 90 days to retrieve the files/transcripts in the case. The
Respondent shall have until February 1, 2016 to file its motion for dismissal
on the merits. With regard to the psychological evaluation suggested by the
Respondent, it is premature for me to decide if such an evaluation would be
beneficial. If the Respondent believes that such an evaluation would be
beneficial, it should make a motion and provide its reasoning for requesting
the evaluation.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nancy Torresen
United States Chief District Judge
Dated this 29th day of September, 2015.

2