Bryl v. Michigan, State of

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REINSTATE [DOC. 11]. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHANNON BRYL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-11163
HON. AVERN COHN

STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REINSTATE (Doc. 11)
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which is closed. On
March 19, 2014, plaintiff Shannon Bryl filed a pro se complaint, alleging that she was
subjected to contaminated water at the Camp Brighton Facility. After filing, the Court
issued an Order to Correct Deficiency because Bryl did not name a defendant and did
not file sufficient copies of her complaint for service. (Doc. 5). The Court also told Bryl
to correct the deficiencies by April 30, 2014 and if she failed to do so, the complaint
would be dismissed for want of prosecution. (Id.) Bryl did not correct the deficiencies.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. (Doc. 6).
Two months after the dismissal, Bryl filed a motion to motion to amend her
complaint, which the Court construed as a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 7). The
Court denied the motion. (Doc. 8). Then, on March 3, 2015, nearly a year after the
complaint was dismissed, Bryl filed a motion for enlargement of time. (Doc. 9). In that
motion, Byrl sought relief under Rule 60(b)(1) in order to file a complaint to name a
defendant and to provide the proper number of copies. She also asked for a copy of

her complaint, stating she no longer has a copy. The Court denied the motion on the
grounds that she did not meet the standard under Rule 60(b). The Court also noted that
the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. “Thus, if Bryl wishes to pursue her
claims, she is free to file a new complaint naming proper defendants.” (Doc. 10 at p. 2).
Now, over a year after the Court denied her Rule 60(b) motion, on November 11,
2016, Bryl filed the instant motion to reinstate. Again, she seeks to reinstate her
complaint in order to correct the deficiencies. The motion is DENIED. As previously
explained, Bryl may file a new complaint naming proper defendants. However, she
cannot reinstate this case.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 20, 2017
Detroit, Michigan

-2-