Williams v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs et al

Filing 45

OPINION AND ORDER denying 43 Motion Objections to Dismissal & Motion To Default. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THEODIS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-11938
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN
AFFAIRS, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., JEANE M.
KIVI a/k/a JEANNE M. KIVI,
TROTT & TROTT, P.C., RALPH
LEGGAT, WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, MORTGAGE INVESTORS
CORPORATION, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
SERVICES, SUSAN BETH FALSETTI,
RACHEL STARKS, CNA SURETY, and
THOMAS J. SNYDER,
Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S (1) OBJECTION TO
DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT [DOC. 39] AND (2) MOTION TO DEFAULT
NONRESPONSE TO OBJECTION [Doc. 43]
Plaintiff Theodis Williams (“Plaintiff”) initiated this pro se action against
Defendants on May 3, 2011, by filing a twenty-six page pleading entitled “Veteran’s
Complaint for Rescission of Mortgage and Restitution and Claim” and multiple
documents. This Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice on October 27,
2011, concluding that while “filled with historical prose, streams of incoherent ramblings,
and nonsensical citations to various actual and imagined legal authorities” the complaint
lacked “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to

relief’ as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.” (Doc. 37 at 4.) Plaintiff
responded to the Court’s opinion and order by filing the following pleadings:
•Plaintiff’s Objection to Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint/Action Brought
Favoring Bank of America, N.A. by Trott & Trott, P.C. and Bodman by
Attorney Michelle T. Thomas and All Other Defendants, filed November
22, 2011; and
•Plaintiff’s Motion to Default Nonresponse to Objection to Dismissal of
Plaintiff’s Complaint/Action Brought Favoring Bank of America, N.A. by
Trott & Trott, P.C. and Bodman by Attorney Michelle T. Thomas and All
Other Defendants, filed December 23, 2011.
Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) filed a response to Plaintiff’s latter motion
asking that the Court inter alia strike the motion for failing to comply with federal and
local court rules and enter an order barring Plaintiff from filing any more documents
relating to: (1) the Court’s October 27, 2011 opinion and order; (2) the 36th District Court
of Wayne County’s judgment granting possession of the subject property to the
Department of Veteran Affairs; and (3) BANA and its counsel without first obtaining the
Court’s permission.
The Court construes Plaintiff’s pleadings as motions for reconsideration of the
Court’s decision dismissing his complaint. Pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan
Local Rule 7.1, a motion for reconsideration only should be granted if the movant
demonstrates that the Court and the parties have been misled by a palpable defect and that
a different disposition of the case must result from a correction of such a palpable defect.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). A motion that merely presents the same issues already ruled
upon by the Court shall not be granted. Id. A motion for reconsideration must be filed
2

within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1).
Plaintiff’s motions were not timely filed. However, even if they were timely, the
Court finds that the motions fail to state a basis for this Court to reconsider the dismissal
of his complaint.
In his pending motions, Plaintiff rails against this Court, the judge who handled
related eviction proceedings in the state court, and the attorneys representing Defendants.
As he did in his complaint, Plaintiff refers to various actual and imagined legal
authorities, none of which support any perceptible relief sought in his complaint. The
motions set forth no coherent basis for this Court to find a palpable defect in its October
27, 2011 decision. The matter is now closed.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to file any further pleadings in this action, such
pleadings must be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan. There must be a federal rule
authorizing the pleading and the relief sought. The Court will strike any future pleadings
that Plaintiff files that do not comply with this requirement and may sanction Plaintiff if
he fails to abide by this requirement.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Objection to Dismissal of Plaintiff’s
Complaint/Action [Doc. 39] is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Default Nonresponse to
Objection to Dismissal [Doc. 43] is DENIED.
3

Dated: January 25, 2012

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Theodis Williams
19394 Goulburn Street
Detroit, MI 48205
Julia A. Caroff, Esq.
Jessica L. Berg, Esq.
Michelle T. Thomas, Esq.
Matthew J. Boettcher, Esq.
Jason P. Klingensmith, Esq.
Byron P. Gallagher Jr., Esq.
Michael S. Hill, Esq.
Omar J. Harb, Esq.

4