Byrd v. United States of America
Filing
36
ORDER denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration re 34 Order on Motion to Set Aside, Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion - Free filed by Bennie Byrd, III, COURT WILL TERMINATE ANY ADDITIONAL MOTIONS WITHOUT FUTHER ACTION OR EXPLANATION. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BENNIE BYRD, III, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of BENNIE
BYRD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 12-cv-12174
Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Bennie Byrd, III, proceeding pro se, filed the instant action as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Bennie Byrd, Jr. (“Decedent”), his father,
on May 16, 2012 against the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort
Claims Act. On October 30, 2012, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for want of subject matter
jurisdiction. After the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s lawsuit, Plaintiff filed three
documents with the Court: (1) “Objection to the Judgment, Opinion and Order
Granting Defendant[’s] Motion to Dismiss”; (2) “Motion Requesting the Court to
Amend its Judgment” filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b); and
(3) “Motion to Set Aside Judgment/Opinion and Order Granting Defendant[’]s
Motion to Dismiss” filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).
These motions were denied in an Opinion and Order dated February 7, 2013.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed this
Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint in an unpublished order dated June 28,
2013. Byrd v. United States, No. 12-2560 (6th Cir. June 28, 2013). A mandate
issued on November 19, 2013. Between the time of the unpublished order and the
issuance of the mandate, Plaintiff filed two additional motions: (1) “Motion to Set
Aside Order and Judgment or Reopen Case,” filed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(6) on October 29, 2013 and (2) Motion to Void
Order and Judgment,” filed on November 13, 2013. In an Opinion and Order dated
January 10, 2014, the Court denied both motions.
Presently before the Court is yet another motion seeking reconsideration of
the Court’s January 10, 2014 Opinion and Order. (ECF No. 35.) Eastern District
of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h) states the grounds for granting a motion for
reconsideration; it provides:
The movant must [1] not only demonstrate a palpable
defect [2] by which the court and the parties have been
misled but also [3] show that correcting the defect will
cause a different disposition of the case.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is ‘a defect that is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain.’” United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682,
684 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (citation omitted). “[T]he 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.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).
2
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is not “‘to give an unhappy litigant
one additional chance to sway the judge.’” Pakideh v. Ahadi, 99 F. Supp. 2d 805,
809 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (quoting Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F. Supp. 879, 889 (E.D. Va.
1977)).
Plaintiff does not raise new arguments in his reconsideration motion nor
does he identify a palpable defect which misled the court. Plaintiff merely
reiterates the arguments he presented in the motions this Court denied. Plaintiff’s
Motion for Reconsideration is accordingly DENIED.
Given the multiplicity of filings in this action, the Court notes that it no
longer has jurisdiction over this action as Plaintiff has exhausted any and all
remedies in this Court. Accordingly, any additional motions filed in connection
with this matter will be terminated by the Court without further action or
explanation.
DATED: March 3, 2014
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Bennie Byrd, III
1400 West Grand Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48208
Theresa M. Urbanic, A.U.S.A.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?