Rittner v. Williams et al

Filing 159

Order: Rittner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 142 ) be, and the same hereby is, denied. Judge James G. Carr on 2/9/17.(C,D)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Daniel L. Rittner, Sr.,

Case No. 3:13CV1345
Plaintiff

v.

ORDER

Jessie Williams, Warden, et al.,
Defendants

This is a pro-se prisoner’s civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
After I granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, Rittner v.
Williams, 2016 WL 1223221 (N.D. Ohio), plaintiff Daniel Rittner filed a motion for reconsideration.
(Doc. 142).
The motion, which rehashes old arguments and takes issue with the correctness of my
original decision, is denied. The arguments Rittner presents there are fit for an appeal to the Sixth
Circuit, not a motion to reconsider. Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. Michigan, 152 F.R.D. 562, 563
(W.D. Mich. 1993), aff’d 11 F.3d 1341 (6th Cir. 1993).
Also pending is Rittner’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 141). A ruling on that motion will
issue by separate order.
It is, therefore,
ORDERED THAT: Rittner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 142) be, and the same hereby
is, denied.
So Ordered.
s/ James G. Carr
Sr. U.S. District Judge