Harris v. Maplewood Police Department
- Michael Davis
- 0:17-cv-00392
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Harris v. Maplewood Police Department, Judge Davis denied reconsideration and counsel, but granted in part and denied in part Harris’s extension request.
Anthony Harris received 60 days to oppose the Maplewood Police Department’s summary-judgment motion, but was denied additional time for discovery responses and denied permission to seek reconsideration and appointed counsel. The Maplewood Police Department was not granted additional delay for discovery responses.
What happened
In Harris v. Maplewood Police Department, Anthony Harris asked to reconsider earlier orders, including orders denying appointed counsel and granting the Department’s request to compel discovery. He also sought 120 more days to respond to the Department’s discovery requests and motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.
The court found no clear legal or factual error in the earlier orders and said Harris had not shown changed circumstances supporting reconsideration of the decisions about counsel. It denied more time for discovery responses but allowed Harris 60 days to oppose the Department’s summary-judgment motion.
Judge Michael J. Davis denied Harris’s request to file a reconsideration motion and for appointed counsel. Judge Davis granted in part and denied in part Harris’s request for an extension of time; the additional extension requests were denied.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Maplewood Police Department · No. 0:17-cv-00392
- Michael Davis
- Oct. 16, 2018
Background
Anthony Harris asked the court for permission to seek reconsideration of several earlier orders. Those orders included an order granting Menard, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, two orders denying his requests for appointed counsel, and an order granting the Maplewood Police Department’s motion to compel. Harris also requested a 120-day extension to respond to the Department’s discovery requests and its motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. He cited his incarceration and medical issues as obstacles to responding on time.
Reconsideration and appointed counsel
Under the District of Minnesota’s local rules, a motion to reconsider requires the court’s permission and compelling circumstances. The court explained that reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or addressing newly discovered evidence; it is not a vehicle for presenting evidence or legal theories that could have been presented earlier.
The court reviewed the earlier orders and found no clear legal or factual errors. Regarding appointed counsel, Harris again cited limited resources, communication difficulties caused by his incarceration, and idiopathic panuveitis that sometimes made it difficult for him to see. The court stated that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case and that Harris had not shown that his circumstances had changed since his earlier requests were denied. The court therefore would not entertain a motion to reconsider the appointment-of-counsel decisions.
Extension of time
The Department argued that Harris had repeatedly missed deadlines, had not responded to discovery requests, and had not responded to the Department’s motions. The court noted that the discovery deadline had been May 1, 2018, so extending the time for discovery responses would cause further delay and prejudice to the Department. The court also noted that the Department had filed its summary-judgment motion on June 21, 2018, and Harris had already received 90 days to respond.
The court found that an extension to serve discovery responses was not warranted. It allowed Harris 60 days from the date of the order to file his opposition to the Department’s summary-judgment motion. It denied his additional requests for extensions.
Order
Judge Michael J. Davis ordered that Harris’s request to file a motion for reconsideration and for appointed counsel was DENIED. The court ordered that Harris’s motion for an extension of time was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: he received 60 days to oppose the Maplewood Police Department’s motion for summary judgment, while his additional extension requests were denied. The court did not decide the pending summary-judgment motion in this order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.