Kensu v. Rapelje et al

Filing 145

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 143 MOTION for Reconsideration and Granting Plaintiff's 142 Petition for Leave. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TEMUJIN KENSU,
Plaintiff,

Case No: 12-11877
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

vs
LLOYD RAPELJE, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE (DOC. # 142) AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. # 143)
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s request for leave pursuant to this Court’s February 4,
2014, Order and a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 14, 2014, Order denying his
request for preliminary injunction and appointment of expert. In his brief, Plaintiff has also
requested a hearing this motion.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for leave. The Court DENIES his motion for
reconsideration and request for hearing.
I.

Motion for reconsideration was untimely.
Local Rule 7.1(h)(1) outlines the rules regarding Motions for Rehearing or

Reconsideration:
(1) Time. A motion for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed within 14 days
after entry of the judgment or order.

1 

Plaintiff requests reconsideration of this Court’s order dated March 14, 2014. Plaintiff
filed this motion for reconsideration on April 4, 2014. Even though this makes his motion
untimely, the Court determines it on its merits.
II.

Motion for reconsideration is denied.
Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides the Court's standard of review:
Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will not grant
motions for ... 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).
Palpable defects are those which are "obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain."

Mich. Dep't of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002). "It is an
exception to the norm for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration." Maiberger v. City of
Livonia, 724 F. Supp. 2d 759, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2010). "[A]bsent a significant error that changes
the outcome of a ruling on a motion, the Court will not provide a party with an opportunity to
relitigate issues already decided." Id.
Plaintiff’s arguments do not demonstrate palpable defects, which if corrected would
result in a different disposition of the Court’s order.
Plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for a hearing is
DENIED.

2 

III.

Medical conditions at issue.
The only medical conditions at issue in this case are those that have been alleged in the

amended complaint. (Doc. #56). After reviewing the motion, it seems the Plaintiff is under the
misguided assumption that every court filing is an opportunity to expand the scope of his
complaint.

For example, if Plaintiff’s hearing disorders were not alleged in the amended

complaint, then they are simply not relevant to this case, even though Plaintiff has now alleged
them in his motion.
IV.

Format of Court filings.
Under Local Rule 5.1(a)(2)
All papers must be on 8 ½ x 11 inch white paper of good quality, plainly
typewritten, printed, or prepared by a clearly legible duplication process, and
double-spaced, except for quoted material and footnotes. Margins must be at least
one inch on the top, sides, and bottom. Each page must be numbered
consecutively. This subsection does not apply to exhibits submitted for filing and
documents filed in removed actions before removal from the state courts.
E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(a)(2).

Under Local Rule 7.1(d)(3) Length of Briefs.

(A) The text of a brief supporting a motion or response, including footnotes and
signatures, may not exceed 25 pages. A person seeking to file a longer brief may
apply ex parte in writing setting forth the reasons.
(B) The text of a reply brief, including footnotes and signatures, may not exceed
7 pages.
E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(a)(2).

3 

The court requires that all future filings conform to all Eastern District of Michigan Local
Court Rules.
V.

Conclusion.

Plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration and request for a hearing are DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED. 
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge

Dated: April 23, 2014

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this document
was served on the attorneys of record and Temujin
Kensu by electronic means or U.S. Mail on April 23,
2014.
s/Linda Vertriest 

4