Tillman v. Meijer Store - Portage et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying 5 Motion Reinstate Complaint. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MATTHEW FOREST TILLMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action No. 15-cv-10091
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

MEIJER, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “PRO SE MOTION CORRECTING DEFICIENCY
AND MOTION TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT”
This matter is presently before the Court on plaintiff’s “Pro Se Motion Correcting
Deficiency and Motion to Reinstate Complaint” [docket entry 5]. Although plaintiff does not
properly title his motion, the Court construes it to be seeking a motion for reconsideration under
Local Rule 7.1(h)(3), which states:
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.
A motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order. In
the present case, the order from which plaintiff seeks reconsideration was filed on January 21, 2015,
so the deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration was February 4, 2015. Plaintiff’s motion is
untimely, as it was filed on February 6, 2015.
Even if plaintiff’s motion had been timely filed, the motion itself does not identify
a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled. Plaintiff fails to show that the Court erred

in finding that the complaint, as filed, failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
Plaintiff has provided information in his motion that, when added to his complaint,
potentially states a plausible § 1983 claim. To that extent, plaintiff is seeking to use his motion for
reconsideration as a vehicle for amending his complaint. However, this Court does not have
authority to allow such an amendment. If a complaint falls within the requirements of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) when it is filed, a district court must sua sponte dismiss the complaint. See
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir.1997). Furthermore, under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, a district court has no discretion to permit plaintiff to amend a
complaint to avoid a sua sponte dismissal. Id.; see also Cantley v. Armstrong, 391 F. App'x 505,
507 (6th Cir.2010). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s “Pro Se Motion Correcting Deficiency and
Motion to Reinstate Complaint” is denied.

Dated: February 20, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

s/Bernard A. Friedman
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2