Harris et al v. Maplewood Police Department et al

Filing 116

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1.Plaintiff's Request to file a Motion for Reconsideration and for Appointment of Counsel 110 is DENIED; and 2. Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time 108 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: Plaintiff shall have sixty days from the date of this Order to file his opposition to the Defendant Maplewood Police Department's Motion for Summary Judgment 90 . Plaintiff's additional requests for extension are denied.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 10/16/2018. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Anthony Harris,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Maplewood Police Department,

Civil No. 17-392 (MJD/SER)

and John Doe, Arresting Officer,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for an extension [Doc.
No. 108] to file his responses to the Maplewood Police Department’s (“the
Department”) motions for discovery requests, to dismiss and for summary
judgment and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 110] of the
following court orders: the order granting Defendant Menard, Inc.’s motion to
dismiss (Doc. No. 105 (July 27, 2018 Order adopting Report and
Recommendation); orders denying Plaintiff’s previous motions for appointment
of counsel (Doc. No. 17 (May 30, 2017 Order denying motion to appoint counsel)
and Doc. No. 51 (January 30, 2018 Order denying motion to appoint counsel));
and order granting the Department’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 76 (May 9, 2018
Order granting Defendant Maplewood Police Department’s motion to compel).)

1

I.

Motion for Reconsideration
The Local Rules for the District of Minnesota provide that a motion to

reconsider can only be filed with the Court’s express permission, and then, only
upon a showing of compelling circumstances. L.R. 7.1(j). The Court will thus
treat Plaintiff’s motion as a request to file a motion for reconsideration.
The district court’s decision on a motion for reconsideration rests within its
discretion. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir. 1988).
Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence. Such motions cannot in any case be employed as a vehicle
to introduce new evidence that could have been adduced during
pendency of the summary judgment motion. The nonmovant has an
affirmative duty to come forward to meet a properly supported
motion for summary judgment. . . . Nor should a motion for
reconsideration serve as the occasion to tender new legal theories for
the first time.
Id. at 414 (citation omitted).
The Court has reviewed the orders that are the subject of Plaintiff’s request
to file a motion for reconsideration and concludes that those orders contain no
manifest errors of law or fact.
With respect to the request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff again
claims he has a lack of resources and limited means of communication due to his

2

incarceration. He also asserts that in May 2016, he was diagnosed with
idiopathetic panuveitis, which causes inflammation to his eyes, making it
difficult to see at times.
As this court previously found, Plaintiff has no constitutional right to
appointed counsel in a civil matter, and whether to appoint counsel is left to the
Court’s discretion. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). In addition,
in deciding a motion for counsel in a civil matter, the Court must consider
“whether the plaintiff and the court will substantially benefit from the
appointment of counsel, considering the factual and legal complexity of the case,
the plaintiff's ability to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting
testimony, and the ability of the plaintiff to present his claim.” Plummer v.
Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996).
Based on the above, and the fact that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
his circumstances have changed since his previous motions for appointment of
counsel were denied, the Court will not entertain a motion to reconsider
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.

3

II.

Motion for Extension
Plaintiff requests a 120-day extension to respond to Defendants’ various

motions, which include motions to compel discovery and motions to dismiss and
for summary judgment. Plaintiff asserts that his incarceration and his medical
issues present obstacles to his ability to represent himself and to respond in a
timely manner.
The Department notes that throughout this lawsuit, Plaintiff has failed to
comply with all deadlines. He has never responded to any requests for
discovery and has failed to respond to any of the Department’s motions. The
deadline for discovery was May 1, 2018, therefore an extension to respond to the
Department’s discovery requests will only result in further delay and prejudice
to the Department. Further, the Department filed its motion for summary
judgment on June 21, 2018 and Plaintiff was given ninety days to respond. Thus,
he has already been given additional time to file his opposition.
The Court finds an extension to serve responses to discovery requests is
not warranted. The Court will allow Plaintiff sixty days from the date of this
Order to file his opposition to the Department’s motion for summary judgment.
The Court will thereafter rule on the briefs submitted by the parties.

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Request to file a Motion for Reconsideration and for
Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 110] is DENIED; and
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time [Doc. No. 108] is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part as follows: Plaintiff shall have sixty days
from the date of this Order to file his opposition to the Defendant
Maplewood Police Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.
No. 90]. Plaintiff’s additional requests for extension are denied.
Date: October 16, 2018

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court

5