Wilson v. Hill

Filing 175

ORDER denying 174 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 11/20/12. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

LAWRENCE E. WILSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:08-CV-552
Magistrate Judge King

LEON HILL,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court, with the consent of the parties
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), for consideration of Defendant Leon
Hill’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Leave to
File Motion for Summary Judgement Instanter (“Defendant’s Motion to
Reconsider”), Doc. No. 174.
This case has been pending since June 2008.

On May 4, 2009,

defendant filed his first motion for summary judgment, Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 35, which was denied on February
22, 2010.

Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 45, pp. 9-10.

On July 1, 2011,

defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment, Defendant Leon
Hill’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 110, which was
denied on March 29, 2012.

Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 147, pp. 43-44.

On September 25, 2012, more than a year after the deadline for filing
dispositive motions, see Doc. Nos. 58, 103, defendant sought leave to
file yet a third motion for summary judgment.

Defendant Leon Hill’s

Motion for Leave for this Court to Consider the Instant Pleading as a
Third Motion for Summary Judgment Raising Qualified Immunity, Doc. No.

1

158.

On November 13, 2012, the Court denied that motion.

Order, Doc. No. 171.

Opinion and

Defendant now seeks reconsideration of that

order. Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider is without merit.
The Court’s November 13, 2012 Opinion and Order, which denied
defendant leave to file a third motion for summary judgment, is an
interlocutory order requiring further proceedings.

Id.

Although the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly address motions for
reconsideration of interlocutory orders, the authority for a district
court to hear such motions is found in both the common law and Rule
54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

See Moses H. Cone

Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 12 (1983) (“Every
order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the
discretion of the district judge”); Mallory v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273,
1282 (6th Cir. 1991) ( “District courts have inherent power to
reconsider interlocutory orders and reopen any part of a case before
entry of a final judgment.”); Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health &
Welfare Fund, 89 F. App’x 949, 959-60 (6th Cir. 2004).
“Traditionally, courts will find justification for reconsidering
interlocutory orders when there is (1) an intervening change of
controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or, (3) a need to correct
a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”

Rodriguez, 89 F. App’x

at 959 (citing Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F.Supp. 955, 965 (N.D.
Ohio 1998)).

However, a motion for reconsideration “should not be

used to re-litigate issues previously considered.”

Am. Marietta Corp.

v. Essroc Cement Corp., 59 F. App’x 668, 671 (6th Cir. 2003).
Defendant does not point to a change of controlling law, new

2

evidence, or clear error in the Court’s Opinion and Order, but merely
offers arguments and issues previously presented to – and rejected by
– this Court.
Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider, Doc. No. 174, is therefore
DENIED.

November 20, 2012

s/ Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

3