United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
TERRY ALLEN ANDERSON, AND ANY AND ALL PERSONS SIMILAR; Plaintiff,
D. KAEMINGK, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS AT DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS FOR STATE OF SD, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; D. YOUNG, WARDEN AT SIOUX FALLS PRISON SYSTEM, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; T. PONTO, ASSOC. WARDEN AT JAMESON ANNEX, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; A. ALLCOCK, ASSOC. WARDEN AT SDSP, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; T. MEIROSE, A. MADSEN, O. BERTSCH, SECTION MANAGERS; Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terry Anderson, is an inmate at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary in Sioux Falls. Anderson filed a pro se civil
rights lawsuit and requested leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Docket 1; Docket 2. The
court granted Anderson's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis but dismissed his complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Docket 6. Anderson now moves the court to reconsider this
order. Docket 8.
Federal Rules provide the following regarding grounds for
relief from an order:
motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . .
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(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 opposing party;
(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;
(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 414 (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal &
Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir.), as amended,
835 F.2d 710 (7th Cir. 1978)). Anderson claims fraud and
misrepresentation by the court in seeking a reconsideration.
Docket 8 at 3. The court construes Anderson's claim as
one questioning the court's interpretation of the facts,
rather than an assertion relating to the court's intent.
The court addresses individually each issue raised in the
motion to reconsider.
Retaliation or Conditions of Confinement
first asks the court to reconsider its dismissal of his
retaliatory discipline claim. Docket 8. The court found that
Anderson failed to state a retaliatory discipline claim,
because Anderson did not allege that he was exercising a
constitutional right or that an exercise of a constitutional
right was the motivation for the alleged retaliation. Docket
6. Anderson provides more detailed factual allegations in his
motion to reconsider, but he still fails to allege that he
was exercising a constitutional right or that an exercise of
a constitutional right was the motivation for the alleged
retaliation. Thus, Anderson has failed to show that the
court's previous order was based on any erroneous
findings of fact or conclusions of law.
claim could instead be construed as a conditions of
confinement claim. Anderson identified his first claim as a
retaliation claim on the Civil Rights Complaint form, but his
motion to reconsider cites cases involving unconstitutional
conditions of confinement in segregation housing. For
example, Anderson cites Maxwell v. Mason, 668 F.2d
361 (8th Cir. 1981), to support his claim. In
Maxwell, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district
court's finding of cruel and unusual punishment where an