Taylor v. Combs et al

Filing 15

OPINION and ORDER denying 7 Letter (construed as Plaintiff's Rule 59(e)motion. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CMul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRETT TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action No. 15-cv-10883
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

THOMAS COMBS, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 59(e) MOTION
This matter is presently before the Court on instructions from the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals to construe plaintiff’s April 27, 2015, letter as a timely Rule 59(e) motion to alter or
amend the Court’s judgment. See Docket Entry 12. Plaintiff’s April 27, 2015, letter states in full:
It is kida [sic] hard to do this because I am hevaly [sic] medicated.
Staff asalted [sic] me resently [sic] . . . please help.
Note also sue is on all MDOC Employees.
I’m sueing [sic] the hole [sic] state their laws are a violation of my
rights . . . All sitasents [sic]. He hit me and I hit the wall.
Combs name removed from claim. I have no name for defendents
[sic], Combs is one of the defendents [sic]. Combs name was the
only one ezaly [sic] avalable [sic]. You must ask for my other
evadince [sic]. You shouldn’t deny my claim without seeing my
other evadince [sic].
Docket Entry 7.
Rule 59(e) motions are entrusted to the Court’s sound discretion. Keweenaw Bay
Indian Community v. United States, 940 F.Supp. 1139, 1140 (W.D. Mich. 1996). “A court may
grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend if there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.”
Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005). “A Rule 59(e) motion, however, is

not intended as a vehicle to relitigate previously considered issues . . . [and] should not be utilized
to submit evidence which could have been previously submitted in the exercise of reasonable
diligence . . . [and] the ‘proper vehicle for relief is an appeal’ rather than a motion to alter or
amend.” Keweenaw, 940 F.Supp. at 1041.
The substance of plaintiff’s letter, even when construed liberally, does not satisfy any
of the four standards under which Rule 59(e) motions may be granted. Plaintiff does not argue that
there has been an intervening change in controlling law, nor has he established that the Court has
made a clear error of law. Plaintiff also has failed to show that relief is needed to prevent a manifest
injustice.1 And although plaintiff asserts that the Court “must ask for [his] other [evidence]” and that
the Court “shouldn’t deny [his] claim without seeing [his] other [evidence],” he has not established
that this evidence was previously undiscoverable at the time he filed his complaint. Accordingly,
plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion shall be denied.
SO ORDERED.

S/ Bernard A. Friedman_________
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 14, 2016
Detroit, Michigan

1

A “manifest injustice” has been defined as “[a]n error in the trial court that is direct,
obvious, and observable.” Tenn. Protection & Advocacy Inc. v. Wells, 371 F.3d 342, 348 (6th
Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has made no such showing in his letter.