Dumas v. Baldwin House Management et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying plaintiff's Motion for relief from judgment, and/or alteration or amendment of judgment, and/or for a new trial and/or to amend the complaint 20 and granting plaintiff's motion for pauper status 23 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE MAE DUMAS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-CV-14438
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.
BALDWIN HOUSE MANAGEMENT
d/b/a AMERICAN HOUSE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C.,
et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT,
AND/OR ALTERATION OR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT, AND/OR
FOR A NEW TRIAL AND/OR TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT (DOC. # 20)
AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PAUPER STATUS (DOC. # 23)

On February 20, 2014, this court entered both its order granting defendants’
motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pro se employment discrimination complaint and a judgment
in favor of defendants. On March 17, 2014, plaintiff filed both the motion captioned
above as well as a notice of appeal of the court’s February 20 ruling. Plaintiff also filed
a “motion for pauper status,” requesting that the court waive payment of the appellate
filing fee. On March 31, 2014, the defendants filed their response brief and plaintiff filed
her “brief in support of motion.”

-1-

Although the general rule is that “a timely appeal divests the district court of
jurisdiction to reconsider its judgment until the case is remanded by the Court of
Appeals,” Pittock v. Otis Elevator Co., 8 F.3d 325, 327 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth Circuit
has determined it is within this court’s discretion to consider a motion for reconsideration
while the appeal is pending. See LSJ Investment Co., v. O.L.D., Inc., 167 F.3d 320,
324 (6th Cir. 1999).
The court has considered both plaintiff’s initial one page motion filing as well as
her brief in support. Both Rules 60 and 59 are addressed in those documents. Rule
59(e), addressing alteration of or relief from a court order or judgment, would require
that plaintiff demonstrate a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening
change in the law, or manifest injustice. Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Schs., 469
F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006). Rule 60 affords relief in the event of certain enumerated
reasons, such as mistake; newly discovered evidence; fraud; a void or satisfied
judgment; or another “reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The court finds
that the assertions made by plaintiff in her most recent filings do not satisfy either
standard. Plaintiff’s additional, alternative request to amend the complaint is likewise
without merit. Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s “Motion for Relief from
Judgment, and/or Alteration or Amendment of Judgment, and/or for a New Trial and/or
to Amend the Complaint” (Doc. # 20).
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for pauper status, listing the issues she wishes to
pursue on appeal and including her supporting affidavit detailing her household financial
situation and stating her inability to pay fees and costs. The court is satisfied

-2-

that plaintiff cannot afford the appellate filing fee and hereby GRANTS the motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed in compliance with Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2014
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
April 2, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
WillieMae Dumas, 2615 Martin L. King Avenue
Flint, MI 48505-4941.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-3-