Henson v. Neal

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

TIMOTHY G. HENSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:22-CV-00119-DRL

RON NEAL et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER Timothy G. Henson, a prisoner without a lawyer, moves the court for reconsideration from its order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. ECF 144. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants because it concluded that (1) the defendants’ attempt to transfer Mr. Henson from Indiana State Prison (ISP) to Westville Correctional Facility (WCF) did not constitute an adverse action likely to deter First Amendment activity in the future, and (2) Mr. Henson’s claim for injunctive relief against Warden Neal was moot because the transfer to WCF had been canceled. ECF 142 at 6-8. In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Henson argues the court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendants for three reasons. ECF 144. First, he argues the court improperly concluded he did not show causality between his protected First Amendment activity and the defendants’ attempt to transfer him from ISP to MCF. ECF 144 at 5-6, 12-13, 16-19. But the court never made any determination whether Mr. Henson showed causality, specifically noting it did not reach this issue. ECF 142 at 8 n.2. Second, Mr. Henson argues that he provided evidence that the proposed transfer from ISP to WCF was an adverse action. ECF 144 at 6-11. Specifically, he argues the court

improperly concluded he did not dispute various portions of an affidavit submitted by John Hicks, the Litigation Liaison and Tort Claims Investigator at MCF. Id. But the court already addressed Mr. Henson’s attempted disputes at length in its order granting summary judgment, concluding that (1) Mr. Henson’s speculation was insufficient to create a genuine dispute, and (2) the non-speculative evidence Mr. Henson provided showed only minor changes in circumstances insufficient to constitute an adverse action.

ECF 142 at 7-8; see Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion”). Third, Mr. Henson argues he provided evidence that Warden Neal was involved

in his proposed transfer to WCF. ECF 144 at 15. But the court dismissed Mr. Henson’s claim against Warden Neal as moot, and never addressed whether Warden Neal was involved in the proposed transfer. ECF 142 at 8. Thus, Mr. Henson has not provided any argument that warrants reconsideration of the court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

For these reasons, the motion to reconsider (ECF 144) is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

October 11, 2024 s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court