Greiner v. Charter County of Macomb, Michigan et al

Filing 159

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 158 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

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

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

v.
CHARTER COUNTY OF
MACOMB, MICHIGAN aka
MACOMB COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINITFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #158)
By an Opinion and Order dated September 11, 2017 (ECF #117) and a second
Opinion and Order dated November 13, 2017 (ECF #138), this Court granted summary
judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff John Greiner on all of Greiner’s
claims. Greiner filed eight motions for reconsiderations (ECF ## 118, 119, 121, 122, 125,
126, 128, 129), and the Court entered orders denying them all (ECF ## 124, 127, 131). The
Court subsequently entered a final judgment against Greiner (ECF #139), and Greiner
thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF #140.)
With his appeal still pending, Greiner returned to this Court and filed a motion for
relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF
#155.) Because Greiner had filed a Notice of Appeal from the Court’s final judgment, this
Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under Rule 60(b). See Pickens v. Howes, 549 F.3d
377, 383 (6th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, this Court denied Grenier’s motion. (ECF #157).

1

Furthermore, this Court indicated that, in the event of a remand, this Court would not grant
Grenier’s motion for relief from judgment because the motion presented no new basis on
which to disturb the judgment entered against Greiner. (Id. at Pg. ID 9990.)
On November 30, 2018, Grenier filed another motion for reconsideration from
judgment “based on fraud on the court.” (ECF #158.) Motions for reconsideration are
governed by Local Rule 7.1(h). That rule provides:
Generally, and without restricting the Court's discretion, the
Court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration
that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court,
either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant
must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
Court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on
the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the
defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).
The Court has reviewed Greiner’s motion and concludes that he has not met this
standard. Greiner has once again failed to persuade the Court that its earlier Opinions and
Orders (ECF ##117, 138) contain palpable defects, or that correction of any of the alleged
defects would result in a different disposition. Accordingly, Greiner’s motion (ECF #158)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 10, 2018

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on December 10, 2018, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3