Hagerman v. Macomb, County of et al

Filing 55

ORDER Denying 50 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEBORAH HAGERMAN,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15-10952
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
MACOMB, COUNTY OF,
ANTHONY M. WICKERSHAM,
AMY FRANKS,
BRIAN PINGILLEY,
STEVEN MARSCHKE,
KEITH PETHKE,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [#50]

I.

BACKGROUND
This matter is now before the Court on individual Defendants Deputies

Steven Marschke (“Marschke”), Keith Pethke (“Pethke”), Brian Pingilley
(“Pingilley”), and Amy Franks’ (“Franks”) Motion for Reconsideration filed on
April 12, 2017. (Doc # 50) On March 29, 2017, the Court entered an Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
and/or Dismissal. (Doc # 48) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.
1

II.

ANALYSIS
A.

Standard of Review

The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion
for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or
order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). No response to the motion and no oral argument
thereon are permitted unless the Court orders otherwise.

Id. at 7.1(h)(2).

Defendants’ Motion is timely filed.
Local Rule 7.1 further states:
(3) Grounds. 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.
Id. at 7.1(h)(3).

“A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is obvious, clear,

unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Fleck v. Titan Tire Corp., 177 F. Supp. 2d 605,
624 (E.D. Mich. 2001). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash
old arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have
brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.
1998) (motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration, not
initial consideration”) (citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st
Cir. 1992)).
2

B.

Palpable Defect
1.

Deliberate Indifference Analysis

Defendants argue that the Court made a palpable error in its March 29, 2017
Order because the Court failed to apply both the objective and subjective prongs of
the deliberate indifference analysis to each individual Defendant.

Defendants

again argue that, at worst, the conduct of each individual Defendant was negligent.

The Court finds that Defendants have not met their burden on a motion for
reconsideration, as they have not demonstrated a palpable defect by which the
Court has been misled. The Court did apply both the objective and subjective
prongs of the deliberate indifference analysis to each Defendant. (Doc # 48, Pg ID
1032-44)
Through the instant Motion, Defendants merely re-hash the same arguments
they have made before. Defendants argue again that Marschke and Pethke could
not have formulated the subjective deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of
harm with respect to Ryan Hagerman because they had nothing to do with Mark
Cowans’ (“Cowans”) placement in the high-observation suicide-watch cell with
Ryan Hagerman.

Defendants argue again that Marschke and Pethke had no

opportunity or means to prevent the harm that occurred because any housing
decisions they made or could have made with respect to Cowans would have been
3

“vetoed” once the mental health unit assessed Cowans and made a housing
determination. Defendants argue again that Pingilley and Franks had no reason to
know of Cowans’ propensities and were not given a reasonable opportunity to act
or react in order to be found to have consciously disregarded a substantial risk of
serious harm.

A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old

arguments. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, 146 F.3d at 374. The Court already considered
and rejected these arguments and concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff Deborah Hagerman (“Hagerman”), a reasonable juror could
conclude that Marschke, Pethke, Pingilley, and Franks were deliberately indifferent
to the safety of Ryan Hagerman.
2.

Qualified Immunity and Clearly Established Right

Defendants argue that the Court made a palpable error in its March 29, 2017
Order because the Court’s identification of the clearly established right was overly
broad.
The Court finds that Defendants have not met their burden on a motion for
reconsideration, as they have not demonstrated a palpable defect by which the
Court has been misled. Defendants argue again that there is no right for a detainee
to be housed alone or isolated and continuously monitored. The Court already
expressly considered and expressly rejected this argument. (Doc # 48, Pg ID 103031) The Court concluded that Hagerman asserted a deliberate indifference claim
4

regarding an inmate’s right to be free from violence at the hands of his cellmate;
that Ryan Hagerman was not housed alone and was not continuously monitored are
two of the ways in which his right to be free from violence at the hands of his
cellmate was allegedly violated.
3.

Proximate Causation

Defendants argue that the Court made a palpable error in its March 29, 2017
Order because the Court overlooked the causation requirement in Section 1983
actions.
The Court finds that Defendants have not met their burden on a motion for
reconsideration, as they have not demonstrated a palpable defect by which the
Court has been misled. Again, Defendants merely re-hash the same arguments
they have made before. Defendants fail to point to any fact that the Court did not
already expressly consider it its May 29, 2017 Order. Defendants concede that the
Court did acknowledge that Cowans was assessed by the mental health unit before
being placed in the cell with Ryan Hagerman, and that Cowans and Ryan
Hagerman remained together in the cell for 14 hours without incident before
Cowans attacked and killed Ryan Hagerman. Nevertheless, the Court rejected
Defendants’ proximate causation arguments and found that Defendants had an
opportunity to know of and disregard the risk of harm to Ryan Hagerman, a
specifically identifiable potential victim. The Court concluded that, viewing the
5

facts in the light most favorable to Hagerman, a reasonable juror could conclude
that the individual Defendants did have knowledge of a specific risk of harm to an
identifiable individual, and that their conduct rose to the level of deliberate
indifference and not just mere negligence.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc # 50) is DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: June 21, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on June 21, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

6