Menefee v. M.D.O.C. et al, No. 2:2020cv13399 - Document 31 (E.D. Mich. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 12 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AFla)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RICO MENEFEE, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 20-cv-13399 Honorable Linda V. Parker v. M.D.O.C., et al., Defendants. ______________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On August 31, 2021, this Court issued an opinion and order summarily dismissing Plaintiff’s initial complaint which first had been filed and dismissed by the Michigan Court of Claims. (ECF No. 7.) The Court concluded that most of the claims were barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that the remaining claims against the judge who presided over the Michigan Court of Claims’ proceedings were barred by judicial immunity. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 12.) When Plaintiff filed his motion, the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan provided the following standard of review for such motions: Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. 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).1 Palpable defects are those which are “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Mich. Dep’t of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002). The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties 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). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a palpable defect in the Court’s decision. Contrary to Plaintiff’s belief, the Court understands that Plaintiff is claiming that the named defendants, while acting under color of state law, violated his civil rights. However, Plaintiff’s allegations against those defendants already were adjudicated in the Michigan Court of Claims. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Plaintiff from relitigating those claims here. Plaintiff essentially is asking this Court to review the state court’s decision. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 12) is 1 On December 1, 2021, after Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) was amended. 2 DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: June 1, 2022 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, June 1, 2022, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail. s/Aaron Flanigan Case Manager 3
]]>
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.
