Thunder Hawk-Gallardo v. USM Name Unknown et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 44 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 11/9/17. (DJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FRANK THUNDER HAWK-GALLARDO,

4:17-CV-04001-KES

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

SERGEANT JEREMY WENDLING,
Defendant.
Plaintiff, Frank Thunder Hawk-Gallardo, moves this court to reconsider
(Docket 44) its prior order staying discovery until the court determines the
issue of qualified immunity (Docket 40). Thunder Hawk-Gallardo claims that
the stay allows defendant “more time for the rest of the [discovery] to be
[destroyed].” Docket 44.
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
414. Thunder Hawk-Gallardo claims no error of law, fact, or newly discovered
evidence. See Docket 44. Thunder Hawk-Gallardo’s claim that the video
recordings he seeks are no longer available is not newly discovered evidence.
The court was made aware of this by Wendling’s memorandum in support of

the motion for protective order prior to staying discovery. See Docket 33. Thus,
it is
ORDERED that Thunder Hawk-Gallardo’s motion to reconsider (Docket
44) is denied.
DATED November 9, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2