Ralph v. Sampson et al

Filing 28

ORDER Regarding 24 Motion for Reconsideration and Finding that Any Appeal Would Not Be Taken in Good Faith. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AARON RALPH,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 11-15097
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
BARBARA SAMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
and
FINDING THAT ANY APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Aaron Ralph’s Motion for Reconsideration filed
October 11, 2012. On September 28, 2012, the Court entered a Judgment and Order adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation dismissing Plaintiff’s Compliant.
An amendment of an order after a judgment has been entered is governed by Rule 59(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) provides that any motion to alter or amend a
judgment shall be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Motions to alter or amend judgment may be granted if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered
evidence, an intervening change in controlling law or to prevent manifest injustice. GenCorp., Inc.
v. American Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). The Local Rules of the Eastern
District of Michigan provide that any motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after
entry of the judgment or order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). No response to the motion and no oral
argument thereon shall be allowed unless the Court orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2).
Plaintiffs’ motion is timely filed. The Local Rule further states:

1

(3) Grounds. 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 reasonable implication. The movant
must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and
the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion 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).
A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old arguments, or to proffer new
arguments or evidence that the movant could have brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v.
Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)(motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at re
consideration, not initial consideration”)(citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st
Cir.1992)). Federal courts hold the pro se complaint to a “less stringent standard” than those drafted
by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). However, courts have refused to excuse pro
se litigants from failing to follow basic procedural requirements such as filing deadlines. Nor do
the courts grant special or preferential treatment to pro se parties in responding to motions. Jourdan
v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991); Brock v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff asserts in his motion that the Court’s ruling was incorrect. Plaintiff’s motion
reargues and rehashes the issues raised before the Court. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion
merely presents the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties
and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled. Plaintiffs has not shown the
Court clearly erred in its ruling.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Docket Entry No. 24] is

2

DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any appeal from this Court’s Order is frivolous and not
taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962),
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997).

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: February 5, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
February 5, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3