Harris v. Hill

Filing 107

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 94 MOTION to Clarify 91 Memorandum & Order,, 92 Judgment - (Case) filed by Plaintiff Jim Harris, Jr., 95 MOTION to Disqualify Judge filed by Plaintiff Jim Harris, Jr., 96 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed b y Plaintiff Jim Harris, Jr. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for rehearing/clarification (#94), motion to disqualify judge (#95), and motion to appoint counsel (#96) are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/19/18. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
JIM HARRIS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
NINA HILL, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-83 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Jim Harris’s motions for
rehearing/clarification (#94), to disqualify judge (#95), and to appoint counsel (#96).
I.

Motion for Reconsideration
This Court granted summary judgment to defendant Nina Hill, who was a nurse

practitioner at the prison where plaintiff is incarcerated. The Court held that no evidence
showed that defendant had terminated the lay-in for a bottom bunk when she terminated
lay-ins for early mainline, no peanut butter, and extra time to eat. Plaintiff seeks
reconsideration of the summary judgment order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) governs reconsideration of a judgment. The
purpose of a motion under Rule 59(e) is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to
present newly discovered evidence. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407,
414 (8th Cir. 1988). Such a motion cannot be used to introduce evidence or raise
arguments that could have been made earlier. Id.
Plaintiff re-argues the evidence presented in conjunction with defendant’s motion
for summary judgment and attempts to suggest that more or different discovery would
1

have allowed him to prove his claim. Although plaintiff complains about a subpoena that
defendant served on the Warden, the records produced in response to that subpoena were
in fact produced to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s suggestion that the Court should have “served”
the subpoena is without merit.
Plaintiff also baselessly suggests that defendant falsified documents. Nothing in
the record suggests that is the case. The fact remains that no evidence exists that shows
defendant herself ended plaintiff’s bottom bunk lay-in or that she directed custody to end
the bottom bunk lay-in. Plaintiff’s attempt to reargue the evidence is without merit.
Finally, plaintiff suggests that the Court improperly went outside the record to find
in defendant’s favor. Plaintiff refers to a footnote where the Court expressed its
frustration with the defendant’s citations to the record. The Court did not go outside the
record, but rather conducted an exhaustive review of the numerous documents cited by
both parties in this matter. Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary is mistaken.
The Court thoroughly considered plaintiff’s evidence and arguments in opposition
to defendant’s summary judgment motion. Having further thoroughly considered
plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion, the Court finds it to be without merit.
II.

Motion to Disqualify
Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify is based on his mistaken argument described

above. Plaintiff complains he has no access to the documents the Court accessed, but
those documents are available to the plaintiff because they have been disclosed to him by
the defendant in hard copy format. The Court’s access to those documents is electronic
in accordance with the Local Rules of this Court. Plaintiff suffered no prejudice, and his
motion to disqualify is not well-taken and will be denied.

2

Plaintiff also argues that because the undersigned judge presided over a 2010
criminal matter against the plaintiff and also in other civil matters brought by plaintiff,
the judge’s impartiality is in doubt and that recusal is necessary. Although the Court
disagrees that any appearance of impartiality exists, plaintiff’s failure to raise this motion
until after an adverse ruling on his case is improper. See Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351,
357 n.6 (8th Cir. 1997). Moreover, a judge’s overseeing of plaintiff’s plea agreement
does not demonstrate a lack of impartiality, nor does plaintiff’s mere disagreement with
this Court’s rulings in other cases. The motion will be denied.
III.

Motion to Appoint Counsel
Plaintiff has moved several times for appointment of counsel in this matter. The

Court, after considering plaintiff’s motion and the facts and circumstances of his case,
denied those motions without prejudice. Plaintiff is now proceeding on appeal of this
case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court denies the
motion to appoint counsel for the same reasons it previously denied plaintiff’s motions.
(See, e.g., #37.) Plaintiff is able to present and argue the facts of his case.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for rehearing/clarification
(#94), motion to disqualify judge (#95), and motion to appoint counsel (#96) are
DENIED.
Dated this 19th day of October, 2018.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3