Wilcox v. Southfield, City of et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDWARD WILCOX,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 11-11349

CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, et al,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 11)
I.
On March 31, 2011, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint naming the
following defendants: the City of Southfield, Brenda Lawrence, Joseph E. Thomas, Jr.,
Southfield Police Department, Northland Towers Associates Limited Partnership, Blake
Metatall, Ryan Losh, Andrew Snarey, David McCormick, Jason Schmeider, and
Lawrence Porter. The complaint, in broad terms, claimed violations of his civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff initially paid the $350.00 filing fee. Plaintiff subsequently applied for
permission to proceed without payment of the fee. (Doc. 3). The Court granted the
application and returned the filing fee to plaintiff. (Doc. 4).
Plaintiff took no other action regarding his complaint. Accordingly, on September
15, 2011, the Court dismissed the case. (Doc. 8). The order of dismissal was mailed to
the address of record. It was not returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff took no action

immediately following the dismissal.
Almost a year later, on September 10, 2012, plaintiff a motion to reopen his case.
(Doc. 9). In the motion, plaintiff stated that there was a mistake in the address he
provided to the Court and therefore asked that his case be reopened. The Court denied
the motion on the grounds that plaintiff had not shown good cause for reopening. The
Court also stated that “[s]hould plaintiff wish to pursue his claims, he must file a new
complaint.” (Doc. 10).
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying his
motion to reopen. (Doc. 11). For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
II.
E.D. Mich LR 7.1(h) governs motions for reconsideration, providing in relevant
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 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.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).
III.
Plaintiff has not satisfied the standard for reconsideration. As indicated in the
order denying his motion to reopen, it was plaintiff’s obligation to provide the Court with
a correct address. It is also plaintiff’s obligation to provide the Court with the addresses
for defendants for service. Plaintiff’s failure to do so and failure to take any action for
almost a year after the case was dismissed, does not warrant the extraordinary remedy
2

of reopening his case. Again, if plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims, he must a file new
complaint.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 19, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of
record on this date, September 19, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

3