Chandler v. Neal

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

KEVIN CHANDLER,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:21-CV-901-RLM

RON NEAL,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER Kevin Chandler, a prisoner without a lawyer, files two motions for reconsideration of the court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Warden Neal. The court granted Warden Neal’s summary judgment motion because the undisputed facts showed Warden Neal wasn’t deliberately indifferent to the mouse problem in Mr. Chandler’s cell house, but rather encouraged prison staff to take steps to remedy the problem. In his first motion for reconsideration, Mr. Chandler argues the court ruled on the summary judgment motion too quickly because he had sent physical evidence to the court that it had not yet received. He asserts he sent the court physical evidence to show mouse feces were still present in his cell house, which the court hadn’t received when judgment was entered. But Mr. Chandler submitted an affidavit notifying the court of this physical evidence before its entry of judgment (ECF 80), and the court addressed this evidence in its summary judgment order and concluded it would have no effect on its decision. ECF 83 at 5 (“Mr. Chandler attests he is sending the court physical evidence to show mouse feces are still present in his cell house. But the presence of mouse feces in the cell house doesn’t show Warden Neal was deliberately indifferent in addressing

the problem.”). Because the court already considered this evidence and concluded it had no impact on its decision, this argument provides no basis for reconsideration. See Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments”). In his second motion for reconsideration, Mr. Chandler argues the court didn’t receive his twelve-page “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion Denying

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” prior to entering judgment. ECF 93 at 2. Mr. Chandler is incorrect. The court received and considered this filing as part of Mr. Chandler’s response to Warden Neal’s summary judgment motion. See ECF 74; ECF 74- 1. The “Memorandum of Law” was merely docketed as an exhibit to Mr. Chandler’s response, and the court considered it in ruling on the summary judgment motion. ECF

74-1. Mr. Chandler hasn’t provided any argument that warrants reconsideration of the court’s order granting summary judgment for Warden Neal. For these reasons, Mr. Chandler’s motions for reconsideration (ECF 88, ECF 93) are DENIED. SO ORDERED on July 26, 2023

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT