Perry v. Velsico Chemical Corporation et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

GARY PERRY, #188623,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-11826
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
VELSICO CHEMICAL CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration concerning the Court’s order
denying his motion and application to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees and
costs, as well as the Court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In dismissing the complaint, the
Court concluded that an appeal could not be taken in good faith. In denying his motion and
application to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees and costs, the Court relied upon
its earlier finding that an appeal could not be taken in good faith and concluded that Plaintiff
had not shown reason for the Court to reconsider that decision.
Plaintiff’s current request must be denied. A motion for reconsideration must be filed
within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order. Local Rule 7.1(h)(1). The Court issued
its order and judgment dismissing the civil rights complaint on May 31, 2013, and issued its
order denying the motion and application to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs

and fees on July 23, 2013. Plaintiff dated the proof of service for his reconsideration motion
on August 26, 2013 – more than 14 days after both of the Court’s rulings. His request for
reconsideration is therefore untimely and must be denied.
Moreover, a motion for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by
the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Hence v. Smith,
49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F.
Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a palpable
defect by which the Court has been misled or his burden of showing that a different
disposition must result from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). The
Court properly dismissed his complaint and denied leave to appeal without prepayment of
fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: September 20, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
September 20, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

2