Alexander v. Rosen et al

Filing 28

ORDER Denying re 26 Objection filed by William Alexander [Motion for Reconsideration]. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
William Alexander,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-12249

Gerald Rosen, et al.,

Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Acting pro se, William Alexander (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against multiple
Defendants. In an order issued on June 19, 2014 (Docket Entry No. 4) this Court: 1) declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims; 2) granted Plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.
In addition, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, why his claims against
Judge Gerald Rosen and Judge Cheryl Matthews should not be dismissed based upon absolute
judicial immunity, stating:
Upon initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff’s
claims against Judge Gerald Rosen and Judge Cheryl Matthews should be
dismissed because those Defendants are entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
The Court hereby ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no
later than June 30, 2014, why his claims against Judge Rosen and Judge
Matthews should not be dismissed based upon judicial immunity.
(Id. at 3).
After Plaintiff failed to respond to that Show Cause Order, on July 28, 2014, this Court
issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Rosen and Judge Matthews based on
1

judicial immunity. (Docket Entry No. 5). Plaintiff’s pending motion acknowledges that Plaintiff
received this order on July 29, 2014. (Docket Entry No. 26 at 2).
On December 16, 2014 – more than four full months after this Court’s July 28, 2014
Order was issued – Plaintiff filed a “Motion Objecting To This Court’s Order Applying Judicial
Immunity To Judge Gerald Rosen And Cheryl Matthews” (Docket Entry No. 26). The Court
construes this motion as a motion seeking reconsideration of this Court’s July 28, 2014 Order.
Motions for reconsideration in civil cases are governed by Local Rule 7.1 of the Local
Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan. Local Rule 7.1 provides that a motion for
reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order at issue. See
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(1).
Because Plaintiff “is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are liberally construed and are held
to less stringent standards than those prepared by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Williams v. Browman, 981 F.2d 901, 903 (6th
Cir.1992). Nevertheless, those who proceed without counsel must still comply with the
procedural rules that govern civil cases.” Whitson v. Union Boiler Co., 47 F. App’x. 757, 759
(6th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket Entry
No.26) IS DENIED AS UNTIMELY.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2014

S/ Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
William Alexander,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-12249

Gerald Rosen, et al.,

Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.
_______________________________/
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 18, 2014, the foregoing document was served on counsel of
record via electronic means and upon William Alexander via First Class mail at the address
below:
William Alexander
17515 W. 9 Mile Road, Suite 980
Southfield, MI 48075
S/ J. McCoy
Case Manager

3