Coleman v. People of the State of Michigan

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAMAR COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-14108
Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant.
___________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On October 11, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, which the Court
construed as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The basis for the Court’s dismissal
was the “three strikes” provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which allows the Court to
dismiss a prisoner’s civil rights case where the prisoner seeks to proceed in forma pauperis
if, on three or more previous occasions, a federal court has dismissed the prisoner’s action
because it was frivolous or malicious or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Rawls v. First Name Unknown (FNU) Kelly, No. 09-CV12388, 2009 WL 2058583 (E.D. Mich. July 13, 2009) (Borman, J.); see also Dupree v.
Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that “the proper procedure is for the
district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when it denies the prisoner leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the provisions of § 1915(g)”).
As the Court noted in the October 11, 2012, Opinion and Order:

Plaintiff is not new to the court system. As noted, the
court’s records reveal that he has filed at least nine prior civil
actions which have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Consequently,
the Court concludes that he is a “three striker” who cannot
proceed in forma pauperis for this civil action unless he can
demonstrate that he is “under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Likewise, the Court found that Plaintiff did not fall within that statutory exception to the
three-strikes rule. Therefore, the Court denied Plaintiff’s “Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees,” dismissed Plaintiff’s “Complaint” without prejudice, and denied
Plaintiff’s “Motion to Appoint Counsel.”
Plaintiff has now filed an “Appeal Requesting Reconsideration of Order Dated
October 11, 2012” (Docket No. 7). As the “Appeal” seeks reconsideration of this Court’s
opinion and was filed in this Court, the Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion for
reconsideration. In order to obtain reconsideration of a particular matter, the party bringing
the motion for reconsideration must: (1) demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court
and the parties have been misled; and (2) demonstrate that “correcting the defect will result
in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h). See also Graham ex rel. Estate
of Graham v. County of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir. 2004); Aetna Cas. and Sur.
Co. v Dow Chemical Co., 44 F.Supp.2d 865, 866 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Kirkpatrick v. General
Electric, 969 F.Supp. 457, 459 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “[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

Plaintiff has set forth no palpable defect in his present filing. His contention that the
State of Michigan is engaged “in the commission of slavery” and that he “is being illegally
held in slavery” do not demonstrate otherwise. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES
Plaintiff’s “Appeal Requesting Reconsideration of Order Dated October 11, 2012” (Docket
No. 7).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 2, 2012

3