Comer v. Cabanaw et al, No. 3:2019cv00849 - Document 88 (N.D. Ind. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 84 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr on 10/14/21. (mlc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Comer v. Cabanaw et al Doc. 88 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ALFRED W. COMER, JR., Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:19-CV-849-MGG CABANAW, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Alfred W. Comer, Jr., a prisoner without a lawyer, moves the court for reconsideration of the court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. ECF 84. The court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion on the merits, determining there was no evidence by which a reasonable jury could conclude the defendants’ strip-search policy violated Mr. Comer’s Eighth or First Amendment rights. ECF 81. In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Comer raises two arguments. ECF 84. First, Mr. Comer argues the defendants inappropriately offered evidence he was serving a 60year sentence for murder, which caused him undue prejudice. Id. at 1-2. However, Mr. Comer’s conviction and sentence had no impact on the court’s analysis of the summary judgment motion. Second, Mr. Comer argues the court erred in concluding food theft constituted a valid penological justification for the strip search policy. Id. at 2-3. However, this argument merely seeks to relitigate issues already decided against Mr. Comer at the summary judgment stage. See Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Dockets.Justia.com Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that “[r]econsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion”). For these reasons, the motion to reconsider (ECF 84) is DENIED. SO ORDERED on October 14, 2021 s/Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. United States Magistrate Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
