Bell v. Tibbals et al, No. 1:2013cv02843 - Document 23 (N.D. Ohio 2014)

Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 10/21/14 denying plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and to reinstate his case. (Related Docs. 17 , 18 ) (M,G)

Download PDF
Bell v. Tibbals et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: CHRISTOPHER D. BELL, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : TERRY TIBBALS, et al., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO. 1:13-CV-2843 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. Nos. 17, 18] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On June 9, 2014, this Court issued an Opinion & Order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint were insufficient to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 17) and a motion to reinstate his case (Doc. No. 18). These motions are both denied. Reconsideration is warranted only if there has been: (1) a clear error law; (2) an intervening change in the law; (3) newly discovered evidence; or (4) a showing of manifest injustice. Jones v. Gobbs, 21 Fed. App’x 322, 323 (6th Cir. 2001), citing GenCorp, Inc. v. American Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 832 (6th Cir. 1999). The sole basis for the plaintiff’s motions is that his claims are not time-barred because his action was a re-filing of a prior case and some allegations in his complaint describe mistreatment that could be considered under a “continuing tort” theory. (Doc. No. 17, at 1-5.) The plaintiff, however, has not demonstrated a Dockets.Justia.com “clear error” of statute-of-limitations law that would warrant reconsideration of the dismissal of his case. Further, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that any of the other circumstances warranting reconsideration exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration and to reinstate his case are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: October 21, 2014 -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.