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)

Download PDF
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

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?