Barachkov v. 41B District Court et al
Filing
89
OPINION and ORDER denying 88 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DGoo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PATRICIA BARACHKOV, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Case No. 04-CV-73957, 04-CV-73977
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
CHIEF JUDGE LINDA DAVIS, of the
41B District Court, individually and in her
official capacity,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CHIEF JUDGE LINDA DAVIS’
MOTION FOR REHEARING/RECONSIDERATION (DKT. NO. 88)
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Chief Judge Linda Davis’ Motion for
Rehearing/Reconsideration of this Court’s April 14, 2011 Order allowing Plaintiffs to (1) raise
claims against Defendant in her personal capacity, and (2) seek prospective injunctive relief against
Defendant or her successor in her official capacity. (Dkt. No. 84). For the reasons that follow, the
Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Rehearing/Reconsideration.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 14, 2011, this Court issued an Order in response to issues raised by Defendant at
a December 21, 2010 status conference regarding the significant Sixth Circuit decision in Pucci v.
19th District Court, 628 F.3d 752 (6th Cir. 2010). The Court requested, and the parties filed
supplemental briefing. (Dkt. Nos. 123, 124, 125).1 On April 14, 2011, the Court issued an Order
allowing Plaintiffs to (1) raise claims against Chief Judge Linda Davis in her personal capacity, and
1
This briefing was entered on the Docket in Case No. 04-73977. On April 18, 2011, the
Court ordered all pleadings to be entered on the Docket of the consolidated Case No. 04-73957.
(2) seek prospective injunctive relief against Chief Judge Linda Davis or her successor in her official
capacity. (Dkt. No. 84). Defendant Davis now moves the Court to reconsider this Order, asserting
that the Court’s decision is based on palpable defect because it improperly applied the Rule 56
summary judgment standard to Defendant’s qualified immunity defense, and because it disregarded
portions of the record in its “law of the case” analysis.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Motions for reconsideration are governed by E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3), which states in
pertinent part:
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. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest, or plain.” Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp.2d 714, 718 (E.D.
Mich.2001).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Qualified Immunity
Defendant argues that the Court addressed whether a constitutional violation has occurred
for purposes of qualified immunity, but erred by not addressing whether Plaintiffs’ constitutional
right was “clearly established.” See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 123 S.Ct. 808, 815-16
(2009).
The Court’s analysis of Defendant’s qualified immunity defense comports with the relevant
2
Sixth Circuit precedent presented in Pucci, supra. Specifically, this Court held, as did the Sixth
Circuit in Pucci, that if the trier of fact finds that Plaintiffs had a property interest in their
employment, their right to at least some pretermination process was clearly established. See Pucci,
628 F.3d 767. Defendant has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the
parties have been misled.
B. Law of the Case
Defendant next argues that the Court improperly disregarded the factual record establishing
that Defendant Chief Judge Davis reasonably relied upon the investigative results by the State Court
Administrative Office (“SCAO”).
The Court discussed the “law of the case” doctrine and the related “mandate rule,” as well
as the relevant history of the instant case, in the April 14, 2011 Order. (See Order at 7-10).
Ultimately, the Court concluded that whether Defendant reasonably relied on the SCAO
investigation was a question of fact. Defendant has failed to show that the Court or the parties were
misled by a palpable defect in this analysis.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant Chief Judge Linda Davis’ Motion for
Rehearing/Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 88).
SO ORDERED.
S/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 9, 2011
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
May 9, 2011.
S/Denise Goodine
Case Manager
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?