Hines v. Kaemingk et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NICHOLAS STEWART HINES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DENNIS KAEMINGK, SECRETARY OF
CORRECTIONS; OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; DARIN YOUNG,
WARDEN, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE
PENITENTIARY; OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; CODY HANSON,
UNIT/CASE MANAGER, SDSP; OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY;
MELISSA MATURAN, ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDY COORDINATOR, SDSP; OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY;
JODY JOHNSON, YANKTON COUNTY
CLERK OF COURTS; IN BOTH OFFICIAL
AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES;
BRANDON LABRIE, UNIT/CASE
MANAGER & UNIT/COORDINATOR
SDSP; IN BOTH OFFICIAL AND
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; JANE OR JOHN
DOE, IN BOTH INDIVIAUL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES; AND YANKTON COUNTY,
IN BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES;
Defendants.
4:19-CV-04108-LLP
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND/MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff, Nicholas Stewart Hines, filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Docs. 1 and 6. This Court screened Hines’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted. Doc. 19. Now, Hines moves to amend his complaint
and for reconsideration. Doc. 21.
Case 4:19-cv-04108-LLP Document 24 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
Hines claims that the Court misconstrued what he was alleging in his complaint. Doc. 21.
Hines wants to amend his complaint so he can “dismiss [his] claim of inadequate legal assistance
. . . and clarify [his]underlying and most importing issue, which is concealing the mishandling of
[his] judgment information.” Id. at 1. This Court previously dismissed Hines’s compliant under
the rationale of Heck v. Humphrey (Doc. 19). Hines claims that his complaint should not have
been construed that way and he was not challenging the length/validity of his confinement but
rather that his complaint is “entirely about [the] concealment of [his] court-ordered financial
obligations[.]” Id. at 4. Hines seeks that for the defendants to “explain and/or provide information”
on why he has requests for information have been denied. Id. at 7.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure "Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of
correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Innovative
Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T-O.T Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir.
1998) (internal punctuation and citations omitted). The Eighth Circuit has held that motions for
reconsideration "'cannot in any case be employed as a vehicle to introduce new evidence that
could have been adduced[.]'" Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.
1988) (quoting Rothwell Cotton. Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987). "Such
motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender legal theories, or raise arguments which
could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment." United States v. Metro. St. Louis
Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006).
Because Hines has now articulated his claims more clearly, Doc. 21, the Court understands
his assertions that his complaint is based on seeking relief from the defendants from their alleged
concealment of his documents and not challenging his underlying conviction. Hines has
articulated a mistake of fact, thus, his motion for reconsideration, Doc. 21, is granted. Hines must
Case 4:19-cv-04108-LLP Document 24 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
file an amended complaint, that will still be subject to a screening under 28 U.S.C. §1915A, on or
before June 15, 2020. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. 	That Hines’s motion to amend/for reconsideration, Doc. 21, is granted.
2. 	That the PLRA strike against Hines shall be removed at this time.
3. 	That Hines may file an amended complaint on or before June 22, 2020. His amended
complaint is still subject to a §1915A screening.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Lawrence L. Piersol
United States District Judge
DATED April 22, 2020.
ATTEST:
MATTHEW W. THELEN, CLERK
_________________________
Case 4:19-cv-04108-LLP Document 24 Filed 04/22/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>