Short v. Dearborn, City of et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Rehearing (Reconsideration). Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRIAN J. SHORT,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-10085
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.
CITY OF DEARBORN and 19th DISTRICT
COURT,
Defendants.
/

OPINION AND ORDER
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,
in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on March 4, 2013
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s timely-filed “Motion for Rehearing”
(hereinafter referred to as “motion for reconsideration”) (dkt # 10). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration
of the Court’s Opinion and Order dated February 13, 2013, wherein the Court summarily dismissed
Plaintiff’s pro se complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) (dkt # 7). Local Rule 7.1(h)(2) of the Eastern District of Michigan’s Local Rules provides
that no response to a motion for reconsideration is permitted unless ordered by the Court. In this
case, the Court concludes that no response is necessary with respect to any part of Plaintiff’s filing.
The Court further concludes that the facts and legal arguments are adequately set forth in the brief
submitted. Therefore, finding that the determination of the motion will not be aided by oral

argument, and pursuant to E.D. MICH. L.R. 7.1(f)(2), this Court ORDERS that the motion be decided
upon the brief submitted, without this Court entertaining oral arguments. For the reasons that
follow, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
II. ANALYSIS
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).
The Court hereby denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. In essence, Plaintiff’s
motion: (a) reiterates the same facts he set forth in his pro se complaint, and (b) asks the Court to
revisit the same issues expressly, or impliedly, ruled upon by the Court when it summarily dismissed
his pro se complaint. Replicating his pro se complaint and filing it as a motion for reconsideration
is not sufficient to cause the undersigned to reinstate Plaintiff’s complaint.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that there was no palpable defect upon which the Court
or the parties were misled; therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

2

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (dkt # 10) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
U.S. District Judge
Dated: March 4, 2013

3