WARREN v. FORT DODGE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

No. C08-3038-LRR.

MONTOLLIE WARREN, Plaintiff, v. FORT DODGE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, MIKE BABCOCK, KAREN ANDERSON, CORNELL SMITH, JOHN BALDWIN, TOM CONLEY, Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

September 4, 2009.


ORDER

LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge.

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motion to reconsider (docket no. 34), filed June 16, 2009, motion for attorney fees (docket no. 36), filed June 23, 2009, and motion for ruling (docket no. 40), filed August 27, 2009.

On June 16, 2009, the defendants filed a resistance (docket no. 35) to the plaintiff's motion to reconsider. On July 1, 2009, the plaintiff filed a reply (docket no. 38). The plaintiff cites no authority which allows a court to reconsider its orders or judgment. Moreover, the plaintiff states nothing in the motion to reconsider which alters the court's previous determinations. On the contrary, the record in the instant case makes clear that the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) because he did not properly exhaust the administrative remedies available to him. See generally, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to reconsider shall be denied.

With respect to the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees, on June 25, 2009, the defendants filed a resistance (docket no. 37). On July 6, 2009, the plaintiff filed a reply (docket no. 39). The court deems it appropriate to deny such motion for the reasons stated in the defendants' resistance. The defendants' brief adequately sets forth the law as applied to the facts in the plaintiff's case. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees shall be denied.

Finally, given the court's rulings regarding the motion to reconsider and motion for attorney fees, the motion for ruling shall be denied as moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) The plaintiff's motion to reconsider (docket no. 34) is denied. 2) The plaintiff's motion for attorney fees (docket no. 36) is denied. 3) The plaintiff's motion for ruling (docket no. 40) is denied as moot.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases