United States District Court, District of Minnesota
January 26, 2015
Todd Curtis Myers, Petitioner,
Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections and Michelle Smith, Warden, MCF‐Stillwater, Respondents.
Michael J. Davis Chief Judge United States District Court
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc from this Court’s Order dated October 21, 2014. The Court will construe this motion as a request to file a motion for reconsideration.
The Local Rules for the District of Minnesota provide that a motion to reconsider can only be filed with the Court’s express permission, and then, only “upon a showing of compelling circumstances.” L.R. 7.1(j). The 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. Such motions cannot in any case be employed as a vehicle to introduce new evidence that could have been adduced during pendency of the summary judgment motion. The nonmovant has an affirmative duty to come forward to meet a properly supported motion for summary judgment. . . . Nor should a motion for reconsideration serve as the occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time.
Id. at 414 (citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the Petitioner’s submissions and concludes that Petitioner has not demonstrated compelling circumstances warranting reconsideration. The motion will be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to file a motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 26] is DENIED.