Lee v. Wayne, County of et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying 61 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Jessie Lee. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JESSIE JEROME LEE,
CASE NO. 11-10209
Plaintiff,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
WAYNE COUNTY, ET AL.,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL HLUCHANIUK
Defendants.
_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[61]
I. Introduction
Before the Court is Plaintiff Jessie Jerome Lee’s Motion for Reconsideration
[61].
Defendants Warren C. Evans, Kym L. Worthy, John Curry, Rome Lee, Dr.
Lane, and Jane Parks, filed a Motion to Dismiss [49] on July 13, 2012. On October 25,
2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation [53] as to the
Motion to Dismiss [49], recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims due
to Plaintiff’s failure to bring these claims within the statute of limitations. On
November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Objection [56] to the Report and
Recommendation [53]. On December 7, 2012, Defendants filed a Response [57] to
Plaintiff’s Objection [56], and on January 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second Objection
[58] to the Report and Recommendation [53]. On March 26, 2013, the Court entered

an Order [59] adopting the Report and Recommendation [53], granting Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss [49], and denying Plaintiff’s objections. On April 30, 2013,
Plaintiff filed the Motion for Reconsideration [61] now before the Court.
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [61] is
DENIED.
II. Standard of Review
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) provides that “[o]n motion and just
terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect;...(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” A motion for relief under
Rule 60(b)(1) is intended to provide relief to a party in two instances: “(1) when the
party has made an excusable litigation mistake or an attorney in the litigation has
acted without authority, or (2) when the judge has made a substantive mistake of law
or fact in the final judgment or order.” Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d 483,
490 (6th Cir. 2000).
III. Analysis
In adopting the Report and Recommendation [53] and granting Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss [49], the Court found that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the

2

applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of this
determination. In Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [61] now before the Court,
Plaintiff presents only one argument not already raised in his response to the Motion
to Dismiss [49] or in his objections to the Report and Recommendation [53], and that
has not already been rejected by the Court. Specifically, Plaintiff now argues that the
doctrine of equitable estoppel applies here.
“Unlike equitable tolling, which requires concealment of plaintiffs’ cause of
action, equitable estoppel applies when plaintiffs are aware of their claims but
defendants’ conduct prevents plaintiffs from timely filing suit. When this occurs,
defendants are estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a bar to plaintiffs’
lawsuit.” Egerer v. Woodland Realty, Inc., 556 F.3d 415, 424 (6th Cir. 2009). The
elements of an equitable estoppel claim are as follows:
1) there must be conduct or language amounting to a representation of
a material fact; 2) the party to be estopped must be aware of the true
facts; 3) the party to be estopped must intend that the representation be
acted on, or the party asserting the estoppel must reasonably believe that
the party to be estopped so intends; 4) the party asserting the estoppel
must be unaware of the true facts; and 5) the party asserting the estoppel
must reasonably or justifiably rely on the representation to his detriment.
Id. at 425. “[E]quitable estoppel requires affirmative steps or action on the part of a
defendant. Plaintiffs must have reasonably relied on defendants’ affirmative conduct
in failing to file suit within the statute of limitations. Also...plaintiffs invoking

3

equitable estoppel must establish due diligence.” Id. “Whether there are sufficient
facts to create an issue regarding the applicability of equitable estoppel is a question
of law.” North Am. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Myers, 111 F.3d 1273, 1281 (6th Cir. 1997).
In support of his equitable estoppel claim, Plaintiff again argues that Defendants
administered unnecessary antipsychotic medication in an effort to prevent Plaintiff
from bringing his claims within the statute of limitations, and that Defendants knew
or should have known of this alleged assault.
However, as previously noted by the Court, while allegedly under the
debilitating effects of this medication, Plaintiff alleges he made several other efforts
to pursue his complaints and claims. For example, Plaintiff alleges that he wrote to the
trial judge in his criminal case, as well as to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s office,
the Detroit Police Department’s Internal Affairs Office, the Michigan Attorney
General, the Wayne County Sheriff, to jail officials, and the Michigan Department of
Civil Rights. Based on Plaintiff’s own allegations, the Court has previously held that
it does not appear that Plaintiff’s alleged mental impairments prevented him from
filing a complaint in a timely fashion. As such , Plaintiff again fails to show that his
failure to bring suit within the statute of limitations was a result of any affirmative acts
by Defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim of equitable estoppel is without merit.

4

IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [61] is
DENIED.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [61]
is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Arthur J. Tarnow
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW
Dated: August 7, 2014

5