Corsetti v. Biernat et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Reconsideration, denying Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and Dismissing the Amended Complaint. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH CORSETTI, # 140643,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case Number: 10-cv-12386
Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

THE HONORABLE
JAMES M. BIERNAT, et. al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION, DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DISMISSING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a prisoner civil rights case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the
Court is Plaintiff Joseph Corsetti’s “Second Motion for Reconsideration,” filed on April 7, 2011.
Plaintiff filed his Civil Rights Complaint on June 17, 2010, seeking damages against The
Honorable James M. Biernat, Assistant Prosecutor Margaret DeMuynck, and Prosecutor Eric
Smith. On July 21, 2010, the Court summarily dismissed the Complaint, for failure to state a
claim. Corsetti v. Biernat, No. 10-cv-12386, 2010 WL 2869456 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2010). On
March 25, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff’s First Motion for Reconsideration. Corsetti v.
Biernat, No. 10-CV-12386, 2011 WL 1134990 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2011). Approximately four
months after the Court summarily dismissed Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint, Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint, which is also pending before the Court. The Court construes Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint as a motion for leave to file an amended Complaint. For the reasons stated
below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motions and dismisses the Amended Complaint.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Amended Complaint Dismissed
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint in order to cure a defect in his
initial pleadings, his Motion must be denied given the Court’s dismissal of his Civil Rights
Complaint. The Court may not permit Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to defeat summary
dismissal. See Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 488-89 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997)); see also Clayton v. United States Dep’t of
Justice, 136 F.App’x 840, 842 (6th Cir. 2005) (same). Therefore, if Plaintiff is requesting leave
to amend his Complaint, then he cannot do so; Plaintiff’s Motion comes too late as the case is
closed.
B. Second Motion for Reconsideration Denied
A motion for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days after entry of the Court’s
Judgment or Order. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). Plaintiff signed his Motion on March 30,
2011–five days after the Court’s Judgment denying his First Motion for Reconsideration. The
Court considers Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration timely.
However, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to satisfy the requirements for reconsideration under
E.D. Mich. LR 7 .1(h)(3). First, under E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3), Plaintiff has not shown a
“palpable defect by which the court . . . [has] been misled” or shown “that correcting the defect
will result in a different disposition of the case,” as required by the local rule. The Court
properly denied his First Motion for the reasons stated more fully in its March 25, 2011 Opinion
and Order. A motion for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by the district
court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. See Hence v. Smith, 49

2

F.Supp.2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F.Supp. 951,
952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Plaintiff has not met his burden.
Likewise, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), and as stated in its March 25,
2011 Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff’s First Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff has failed
to offer any arguments which the Court has not already previously considered and rejected in its
prior Orders. As discussed in the Court’s previous Orders, his Civil Rights Complaint was
properly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Second Motion for Reconsideration”
[dkt. # 13] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended
Complaint is DENIED and the “Amended Complaint” [dkt. # 10] is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: May 25, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record
on May 25, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Secretary

3