Sifuentes v. Midland County 42nd Circuit Court, et al

Filing 25

OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 17 MOTION to Alter/Amend Judgment, and Denying Plaintiff's 19 MOTION to Amend/Correct 18 Amended Complaint Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)

Case 1:20-cv-11745-GAD-PTM ECF No. 25, PageID.168 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID ANGEL SIFUENTES,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 20-cv-11745
v.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

MIDLAND CTY. 42ND CIR. CT.,
ET AL.,
Defendants.                           
______________                              /      

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND JUDGMENT [#17] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT [#19]
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff David Angel Sifuentes filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. On October 30, 2020, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s
case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 16. This matter is nearly identical
to another case filed by Plaintiff in this Court on October 29, 2020, see Sifuentes v.
Midland Cty. Prosecutor’s Off., et al., Case No. 20-cv-12907, which was dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) on January 29, 2021.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment,
filed on November 3, 2020. ECF No. 17. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion
to Amend or Correct the Complaint, filed on November 6, 2020, which this Court
construes as a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff moves
1

Case 1:20-cv-11745-GAD-PTM ECF No. 25, PageID.169 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 5

for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and seeks to add additional
claims to his proposed Amended Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court will DENY both of Plaintiff’s motions. Further, as ordered in his previous
case, Plaintiff is ENJOINED from (1) filing further motions and documents in this
case or (2) initiating a new case concerning the same convictions challenged in this
case without first obtaining leave of Court.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint challenges his convictions for third-degree criminal
sexual conduct under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520d(1)(b) and furnishing alcohol
to a minor under Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1701(1). See People v. Sifuentes, No.
232286, 2002 WL 31474446, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2002). Plaintiff asked
the Court to vacate his convictions on the grounds that he was denied his right to a
speedy trial and that the prosecutor engineered the delay to gain a tactical advantage.
ECF No. 1, PageID.7. The Court held that these claims are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success on his claims would “necessarily
imply the invalidity” of Plaintiff’s convictions. ECF No. 16, PageID.120.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 governs motions to alter or amend a
judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). A court may alter the judgment under Rule 59
based on: “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening
change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Leisure
2

Case 1:20-cv-11745-GAD-PTM ECF No. 25, PageID.170 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 5

Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010)
(additional citation omitted). “The purpose of Rule 59(e) is to allow the district court
to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and appellate courts the burden of
unnecessary appellate proceedings.” Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472, 475
(6th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted).
IV. DISCUSSION
While Plaintiff maintains that the Court’s Order should be altered or amended
pursuant to Rule 59(e), he fails to identify a proper basis for Rule 59(e) relief. He
does not claim a clear error of law, the availability of new evidence, an intervening
change in the law, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. Instead, he essentially
reasserts the same facts and arguments presented in his Amended Complaint without
addressing or challenging the applicability of Heck’s favorable-termination
requirement. Plaintiff may not obtain relief under Rule 59(e) by reasserting issues
already ruled upon by the Court. See Howard, 533 F.3d at 475 (“Rule 59(e) . . . does
not permit parties to effectively re-argue a case.”) (quotation omitted). The Court
therefore finds no basis for granting relief under Rule 59(e). Further, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint fails on similar grounds; this Court has
already held that Plaintiff’s prosecutorial misconduct claims are barred by the Heck
doctrine. See ECF No. 16, PageID.121. Thus, the inclusion of Plaintiff’s additional
claims would be futile. See United States ex rel. Harper v. Muskingum Watershed

3

Case 1:20-cv-11745-GAD-PTM ECF No. 25, PageID.171 Filed 03/15/21 Page 4 of 5

Conservancy Dist., 842 F.3d 430, 440 (6th Cir. 2016) (“A proposed amendment is
futile if the amendment could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”).
The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint.
Additionally, the Court has the authority to enjoin vexatious litigants from
filing future pleadings without first obtaining court approval to do so. See Feathers
v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998) (“There is nothing unusual
about imposing prefiling restrictions in matters with a history of repetitive or
vexatious litigation.”); Wrenn v. Vanderbilt Univ. Hosp., No. 94-5453, 1995 WL
111480 at *3 (6th Cir. 1995) (“This court has the authority to enjoin harassing
litigation under its inherent authority and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a).”).
Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to litigate his claims in federal and state
court. Judicial resources will be unnecessarily expended if Plaintiff continues to
engage in repetitive filings raising the same claims and arguments. Accordingly, as
established in his prior case, Plaintiff is enjoined from filing future pleadings in this
matter or raising these same claims in a new action without first obtaining court
approval to do so.1
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
[#17] and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#19] is

1

This restriction does not apply to the filing of a habeas corpus petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241.
4

Case 1:20-cv-11745-GAD-PTM ECF No. 25, PageID.172 Filed 03/15/21 Page 5 of 5

DENIED. Further, Plaintiff is ENJOINED from filing any new documents in this
case and from initiating a new civil action (other than a habeas corpus petition)
asserting the same claims raised in this action without first seeking and obtaining
leave of the Court. To seek leave to file an additional motion, pleading, or other
document in this matter, Plaintiff must submit a motion entitled “Motion for Leave
to File” along with any proposed filing. To initiate a new civil action concerning the
same convictions at issue here, Plaintiff must first seek and obtain leave of court by
the presiding judge.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_s/Gershwin A. Drain__________________
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 15, 2021

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
March 15, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Teresa McGovern
Case Manager

2

The district judges rotate serving as the presiding judge and are usually designated
for one-week periods. The name of the presiding judge is not disclosed before
Mondays at 8:30 a.m. and can be obtained by contacting the Clerk's office. See E.D.
Mich. LR 77.2.  
5