Greiner v. Charter County of Macomb, Michigan et al

Filing 137

ORDER Denying 135 and 136 MOTIONS for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN GREINER,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-13979
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CHARTER COUNTY OF
MACOMB, MICHIGAN, a/k/a
MACOMB COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION (ECF ## 135 & 136)
On September 11, 2017, this Court entered an Opinion and Order in which it
granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Michigan Council 25 American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO and granted
summary judgment in part to Defendant Charter County of Macomb (the “Opinion
and Order”). (See ECF #117.) Plaintiff John Greiner subsequently filed eight
motions for reconsideration directed at the Opinion and Order. (See ECF ## 118,
119, 121, 122, 125, 126, 128, and 129.) The Court reviewed all eight motions and
issued orders denying them. (See ECF ## 124, 127, and 131.) In the order denying
Plaintiff’s two most recent motions for reconsideration, the Court prohibited
Plaintiff from filing any additional motions for reconsideration directed toward the

1

Opinion and Order. (See ECF #131.) The prohibition covered only additional
motions for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order. (See id.)
Plaintiff has now filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order
barring him from filing any additional motions for reconsideration directed toward
the Opinion and Order. (See ECF #135.) That motion is DENIED because Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have
been misled and/or that correcting any such defect, if one existed, would result in a
different disposition. See Local Rule 7.1(h).
The Court gave Plaintiff ample opportunity to demonstrate that
reconsideration of the Opinion and Order was warranted.

Indeed, the Court

considered the arguments in Plaintiff’s eight motions for reconsideration.
Plaintiff argues that the Court has not treated the parties equally. In support
of his unfair treatment allegation, Plaintiff notes that while the Court has barred him
from filing additional motions for reconsideration directed at the Opinion and Order,
the Court permitted Defendant Charter County of Macomb (the “County”) to file a
second summary judgment motion attacking a claim that the County neglected to
address in its first motion. (The claim in question was Plaintiff’s First Amendment
retaliation claim.)

2

Plaintiff’s claim of unequal treatment is misplaced. The Court gave Plaintiff
eight opportunities to demonstrate that reconsideration of the Opinion and Order was
warranted and simply gave the County a second opportunity to show why Plaintiff’s
First Amendment retaliation claim failed as a matter of law. Moreover, there were
important docket efficiency considerations that weighed in favor of permitting the
County to move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation
claim. At the time the Court allowed the filing of that motion, the First Amendment
retaliation claim was the sole claim remaining in the action. And based upon the
Court’s review of the material presented in connection with the County’s original
motion for summary judgment, the Court had reason to believe that the First
Amendment retaliation claim, like Plaintiff’s other claims, suffered from a fatal lack
of evidence. It made sense from a docket efficiency standpoint to test the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting the First Amendment retaliation claim through a
summary judgment motion rather than proceeding directly to a jury trial on that
claim.
Plaintiff also previously filed a motion for a stay of proceedings. (See ECF #
130.) The Court denied that motion. (See ECF #132.) Plaintiff has moved for
reconsideration of the order denying the stay. (See ECF #136.) That motion is
DENIED because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the

3

Court and the parties have been misled and/or that correcting any such defect, if one
existed, would result in a different disposition. See Local Rule 7.1(h).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 13, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on November 13, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4