Ciavone v. Slavens et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY EDWARD CIAVONE,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 2:14-13133
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

v.
MARK T. SLAVENS, et. al.,
Defendants,
/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On September 8, 2014, the Court summarily dismissed Plaintiff’s civil rights
complaint which had been brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 because it failed to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted and on the basis of immunity. Ciavone v.
Slavens, No. 2:14-CV-13133, 2014 WL 4414504 (E.D. Mich. September 8, 2014).
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons stated below, the
motion for reconsideration is denied.
U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for
reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues
already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be
granted. Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters v. Holcroft L.L.C. 195 F. Supp. 2d
908, 911 (E.D. Mich. 2002)(citing to U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (g)(3)). A
motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant demonstrates a palpable
defect by which the court and the parties have been misled and that a different disposition
1

of the case must result from a correction thereof. Id. A palpable defect is a defect that is
obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427
(E.D. Mich. 1997).
Plaintiff alleges that this Court erred in summarily dismissing his complaint.
Plaintiff argues that this Court erred in concluding that his right to the access to the courts
did not extend to filing a legal malpractice action against his criminal defense attorney.
Plaintiff also contends that this Court erred in ruling that the defendants were immune
from suit based upon the Eleventh Amendment to the federal constitution and the doctrine
of judicial immunity.
Plaintiff failed to show that this Court erred in summarily dismissing his § 1983
complaint. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will therefore be denied, because
Plaintiff is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court summarily dismissed Plaintiff’s
civil rights complaint. Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 549, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration
[dkt. # 7] is DENIED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge

Dated: 10/2/2014

2