Campbell v. Gause et al

Filing 190

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 189 Motion for Reconsideration - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARTHUR CAMPBELL, et al.,
Plaintiff,
-v-

Civil No. 10-11371
District Judge John Corbett O’Meara
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

CYNTHIA GAUSE, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff Arthur L. Campbell has filed a motion for reconsideration [Doc. #189] of my
order [Doc. #187] denying his motion to “withdraw” a stipulated order dismissing without prejudice

claim 8 (alleged violation of First Amendment Free Exercise Clause) and claim 9 (alleged
violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) of his complaint.
Motions for reconsideration are subject to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3), which provides:
“(3) Grounds. 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 have been misled but also show that
correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.”
In the present motion, Plaintiff argues that the order in question was based on a “palpable
error” by which the court and the parties were misled. Not so.
Plaintiff contends that when he agreed to a dismissal of these two claims without prejudice,

-1-

he was “led to believe that he would be able to ‘withdraw’ the stipulation and obtain declaratory and
injunctive relief after the jury returned its favorable verdict.” Motion, ¶ 14. This makes no sense.
When the claims were withdrawn, the religion-based issues were removed from consideration, and
the parties–particularly the Defendants–were relieved of the obligation to present evidence
supporting or refuting those claims. Thus, issues of fact remain as to both the First Amendment free
exercise claim1 and the RLUIPA claim.2 That is why summary judgment was not granted on these
claims. But that does not mean that the Court must now rule on withdrawn claims where there are
disputed issues of fact, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s post hoc assertion that he was led to believe
otherwise. I note that Plaintiff was represented by counsel when the stipulation was entered.
The claims were withdrawn without prejudice, meaning there has been no decision on the
merits. Plaintiff’s remedy, if any, is to file a new action, subject to any affirmative defenses that may
be available to the Defendants. Plaintiff has not shown any palpable defects underlying the Court’s
order denying his motion to withdraw his stipulation.

1

E.g., did Plaintiff have a sincerely held religious belief supporting his need for
the oils; was the seizure of the oils reasonably related to a legitimate governmental
interest. See O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987).
2

E.g., was the Plaintiff’s possession of the oils grounded in a sincerely held
religious belief, see Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2774, n. 28
(2014); did the seizure of Plaintiff’s oils impose a “substantial burden” on a religious
exercise; was it justified by a compelling governmental interest; was it the least restrictive
means of furthering that interest. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-1(a); Civil Liberties for Urban
Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1096
(2004).
-2-

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. #189] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2019

s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on June 4, 2019 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the
Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically.
I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to non-registered ECF participants on
June 4, 2019.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager for the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-3-