Latouche v. Dr. John Hammer

Background

Valery Latouche moved for reconsideration of the court’s earlier ruling. Latouche argued that Dr. John Hammer was the official who denied the relevant requests. The court noted that Latouche had not included that information in the Fourth Amended Complaint.

Reasoning

The court explained that reconsideration is meant to identify material the court overlooked. It is not an opportunity to present new facts, issues, or arguments that were not previously submitted.

The court further explained that the earlier ruling did not rest only on the absence of facts showing Dr. Hammer’s personal involvement. The court had also found that Latouche had not plausibly alleged the subjective part of a deliberate-indifference claim. That part requires facts suggesting that Dr. Hammer was actually aware of a substantial risk of serious harm. Latouche’s statement that Dr. Hammer “should of/knew of” the risk did not plausibly allege actual knowledge, and the statement that Dr. Hammer “knew of” the risk, without supporting facts, was conclusory. The court also found that Latouche’s assertion that Dr. Hammer instituted an unconstitutional policy was conclusory and that Latouche relied on outdated law concerning supervisory liability. The court stated that Latouche had had ample opportunity to state a plausible claim but had failed to do so.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel denied the motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 35. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the usual filing fees for purposes of an appeal.