Zammit v. Internal Revenue Service et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 8 MOTION for Reconsideration and dismissing the State of Michigan Revenue Service terminated. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PIO PETER ZAMMIT
Case No.14-14155
Plaintiff,
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [8] AND
DISMISSING THE MICHIGAN REVENUE SERVICE
On October 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against the Internal Revenue
Service, the "Michigan Revenue Service", and over 87 "Michigan State Abortion clinics who
are acting in violation of the Michigan health code and the 14th Amendment . . . ." (Compl.
p. 1). The Court, sua sponte, dismissed the Abortion Clinic Defendants on the grounds that
Plaintiff failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction over these private institutions under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt #5). Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order
on January 9, 2015.1 For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion for
reconsideration must "demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court . . . has been
misled . . . . " E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Here, Plaintiff argues that the Abortion Clinic
Defendants are considered state actors under § 1983--and thus subject to suit--because
they are funded and regulated by the state. This assertion, even if true, does not alter the
1

Plaintiff's motion was received in chambers on January 9, 2015. All future submissions
must be filed with the Clerk of the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(e).

Court's holding. Indeed, the Sixth Circuit has been clear that the "actions of a private entity
do not become state action merely because the government provides substantial funding
to the private party." Wolotsky v. Huhn, 960 F.2d 1331, 1336 (6th Cir. 1992). Moreover,
"state regulation of a private entity, even if it is extensive and detailed, is not enough to
support a finding of state action." Id. Finally, even if the Abortion Clinic Defendants were
acting under color of state law, Plaintiff does not have standing to pursue the claims of
third-parties in this context. See Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of
Cincinnati, 822 F.2d 1390, 1394 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding that, in the absence of two limited
scenarios not applicable here, a plaintiff "must assert his own legal rights and interests, and
cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.”).
Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment bars civil rights actions against a state, its
agencies, departments, and state officials sued in their official capacities unless the state
has waived its immunity and consented to suit or Congress has abrogated that immunity.
See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). “The state of Michigan
. . . has not consented to being sued in civil rights actions in the federal courts,” Johnson
v. Unknown Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 545 (6th Cir. 2004), and Congress did not abrogate
state sovereign immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot sue
the Michigan Revenue Service under § 1983.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's
December 5, 2014 Order is hereby DENIED. It is further ordered that the Michigan
Revenue Service is DISMISSED from this lawsuit.

2

SO ORDERED.

S/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: February 5, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on February 5, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Carol J. Bethel
Case Manager

3