Lossia v. Detroit Public Schools et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JHer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Evelyn Lossia,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 11-12607
Honorable Sean F. Cox

Detroit Board of Education, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination action against the Detroit Board of
Education, Detroit Public Schools, and a number of current and former Detroit Public School
(“DPS”) officials and employees (together, “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s complaint1 alleges federal
and state racial discrimination, racial harassment, disability discrimination, and retaliation
claims, as well as First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and whistleblower protection
claims.
On November 23, 2011, this Court issued an Opinion & Order Denying Plaintiff’s
Motion for an Ex Parte Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to
Protect Students and to Ensure Federal Law is Followed. In her motion, Plaintiff asserted that
Defendants, including the Detroit Public Schools (“DPS”), are in violation of federal law
regarding special education services, specifically certain federal regulations associated with the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), and requested a temporary restraining

1

Plaintiff has since filed an Amended Complaint (D.E. No. 24).
1

order “to protect students” from continued violations. The Court held that “[b]ecause Plaintiff
has failed to satisfy the injury in fact requirement for standing . . . Plaintiff lacks standing to seek
the injunctive relief requested.” (Nov. 23, 2011 Opinion & Order at 9).
On December 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the Court’s
Opinion & Order on her motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
(D.E. No. 17). Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is actually a motion to clarify the Court’s
November 23, 2011 Opinion & Order. In her motion, Plaintiff requests “that this Honorable
Court clarify its order to make it clear that it was not issuing a ruling that: 1. Plaintiff did not
have standing to bring her Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims; and 2. That Plaintiff did not
exhaust her administrative remedies under these acts.” (Plf’s Br. at 6).
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s November 23, 2011 Opinion &
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction,
but instead requests relief that is unrelated to the Court’s November 23, 2011 order.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (D.E. No. 17) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Court
Dated: March 21, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
March 21, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer Hernandez
Case Manager

2