Rogers v. Michigan, State of et al, No. 2:2018cv11064 - Document 15 (E.D. Mich. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration re 14 Objection. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)

Download PDF
Rogers v. Michigan, State of et al Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SAMUEL C. ROGERS, Case No. 18-cv-11064 Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [#14] I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff first initiated this action on March 28, 2018. Dkt. No. 1. On June 26, 2018, the Court entered an Order of Summary Dismissal, finding Plaintiff’s Complaint incomprehensible and legally frivolous. Dkt. No. 9. That same day, the Court entered a Judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 10. On September 18, 2018, Plaintiff refiled a Complaint in this case. Dkt. No. 12. Then, on October 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Rebuttal to the Closing of the Case. Dkt. No. 14. The Court will construe Plaintiff’s Rebuttal as a Motion for Reconsideration. -1Dockets.Justia.com Present before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [#14]. Because Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is untimely and does not provide evidence that the Court made palpable errors that would result in a different disposition of the case, the Court will DENY the Motion [#14]. II. LEGAL STANDARD Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h) governs motions for reconsideration. Local Rule 7.1(h)(1) provides that a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). To prevail, the movant “must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys Health Systems, 704 F. Supp. 2d 688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp. 2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001)). III. DISCUSSION Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), courts must dismiss actions that are “frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). -2- That provision also mandates that courts dismiss a case if it “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In its previous Order, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s Complaint had to be dismissed because the claims were incomprehensible and legally frivolous. See Dkt. No. 9. Further, that the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. See id. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration does not demonstrate that the Court made a palpable error in dismissing his Complaint; rather, Plaintiff simply asserts that the Court refused to listen to his claims. See Dkt. No. 14, p. 8 (Pg. ID 175). This does not satisfy Plaintiff’s burden in a motion for reconsideration. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Moreover, Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely, as his deadline for filing the Motion was July 10, 2018. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1) (motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will DENY the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [#14]. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 31, 2018 s/Gershwin A. Drain HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Court Judge -3- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on this date, October 31, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Teresa McGovern Case Manager -4-

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.