Elizabeth Lone Eagle v. South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment, South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Bob Morris, in his official capacity as Hearing Officer; David McVey, in his official capacity as Legal Advisor to the Board of Minerals and Environment; Mike Lees, in his official capacity as Minerals, Mining, and Superfund Program Administrator; Hunter Roberts, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources; and Clean Nuclear Energy Corporation, as Real Party in Interest

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Elizabeth Lone Eagle’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of her request for a temporary restraining order concerning translation services at a mining permit hearing. The court held that the joinder notice and the indefinite postponement of the hearing did not warrant reconsideration, but extended the time for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A).

Holdings

1. A notice of joinder does not constitute a manifest error of law or fact warranting reconsideration when the additional pro se individuals have not filed an amended complaint signed by all plaintiffs.
2. The indefinite pause of the EXNI hearing did not warrant reconsideration because it eliminated any immediate and irreparable injury that would occur before defendants could be heard.
3. Reconsideration was properly denied because the motion identified no manifest error of law or fact, presented no qualifying newly discovered evidence, and did not establish a proper basis to revisit the prior temporary restraining order ruling.
4. Lone Eagle and the other individuals wishing to proceed as pro se plaintiffs could file an amended complaint as a matter of course within 21 days after service under Rule 15(a)(1)(A), provided the amended complaint is signed by all pro se plaintiffs.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the notice of joinder and participation of six additional pro se individuals constituted a manifest error of law or fact warranting reconsideration of the denial of a temporary restraining order.
2. Whether the indefinite postponement of the EXNI hearing constituted a changed circumstance warranting reconsideration of the denial of injunctive relief.
3. Whether the plaintiffs could file an amended complaint as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A), and whether each pro se plaintiff was required to sign it.

Disposition

other