Rindahl v. Young et al
ORDER denying 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 6 Motion for class certification; denying 7 Motion to Change Venue; denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by U.S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on 1/19/2016. (JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
JAN 19 2016
D. YOUNG, Warden;
J. WAGNER, Deputy Warden;
T. Ponto, Assoc. Warden;
A. Allcock, Assoc. Warden;
M. Carpenter, Medical Director;
R. Regier, Doctor;
B. Adams, PA-C;
J. Schreurs, Registered Nurse;
FIRM/ ADMINISTRATORS UNKNOWN
DOCTOR, Image Consulting Firm,
Plaintiff, Randy Rindahl ("Rindahl"), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S. C. § 1983 and moved to waive his filing fee. Doc. 1; Doc. 3. This Court
denied that motion. Doc. 9. Rindahl now moves this Court to reconsider its
order. Rindahl also has pending a motion for Class Certification with
Appointment of Counsel, Doc. 6, and a Motion to Change Venue. Doc. 7.
Rindahl's underlying claim is that he has not received adequate medical care.
The Federal Rules provide the following regarding grounds for relief from
a final judgment or order:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party .
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has
been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is
no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
A 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." Id. at
Construing Rindahl's motion for reconsideration liberally, none of his
claims fall within the confines of Rule 60. In his motion, Rindahl merely
restates the claim that he is not required to pay his filing fee because he is not
classified as a prisoner under South Dakota law and has made a § 191 S(g)
showing of imminent danger. The Court finds both of these arguments
Due to policy considerations set forth in the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA), joint prisoner litigation is disfavored. See Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d
1194 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that the PLRA preempted Rule 20 provisions
regarding joinder so as to prevent IFP prisoners from litigating jointly). Class
action litigation is not contemplated by the PLRA, and Rindahl's complaint
does not set forth a viable class action case.
Rindahl's request to change venue to the Northern Division of the District
of South Dakota is misplaced. He is incarcerated within the Southern Division
and that is where many, if not all, Defendants reside. Moreover, the District of
South Dakota is one venue, with divisions created by Congress for
administration of this venue.
Finally, Rindahl is not entitled to appointed counsel as a party filing a
civil case. Ward v. Smith, 721F.3d940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). Ifhe pays the
filing fee and his case survives screening, this Court might consider appointing
counsel. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Rindahl's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 10) is denied.
ORDERED that Rindahl shall pay the full filing fee of $400.00 to the
clerk of court by February 10, 2016, or the case will be dismissed without
·prejudice. It is finally
ORDERED that Rindahl's Motion for Class Certification with
Appointment of Counsel, Doc. 6, is denied without prejudice, and that
Rindahl's Motion to Change Venue, Doc. 7, is denied.
Dated January 1q~, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?