Cadwell v. Flescher et al, No. 2:2021cv11182 - Document 9 (E.D. Mich. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER denying Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Reconsideration, denying Plaintiff's 6 Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, and denying Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (JCur)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cadwell v. Flescher et al Doc. 9 Case 2:21-cv-11182-BAF-CI ECF No. 9, PageID.62 Filed 07/22/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOSEF CADWELL, #339620, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action No. 21-CV-11182 HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN BRODERICK FLESCHER, et al., Defendants. ___________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS This matter is presently before the Court on plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, for leave to amend the complaint, and for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 6, 7, and 8). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2) and 7.1(h)(2), the Court shall decide these motions without a hearing. The motion for reconsideration is denied because plaintiff has shown no error in the Court’s opinion and order dismissing his complaint for failing to state an Eighth Amendment claim. See Cadwell v. Flescher, No. 21-CV-11182, 2021 WL 2682718, at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2021). The motion for leave to amend is denied because plaintiff has not met “the requirements for reopening a case established by Rules 59 or 60,” Pond v. Haas, 674 F. App’x 466, 472 (6th Cir. 2016), he has failed to offer “a compelling explanation for failing to seek leave to amend prior to the entry of judgment,” id. at 473 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and he has failed to explain how, precisely, he proposes to amend his complaint. Finally, plaintiff’s motion for leave Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-11182-BAF-CI ECF No. 9, PageID.63 Filed 07/22/21 Page 2 of 2 to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied because no appeal in this matter could be “taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). SO ORDERED. s/Bernard A. Friedman BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: July 22, 2021 Detroit, Michigan CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on July 22, 2021. Josef Cadwell #339620 SAGINAW CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 9625 PIERCE ROAD FREELAND, MI 48623 s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams Case Manager 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.
