Bills et al v. Klee

Filing 122

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 115 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 122, PageID.1410 Filed 02/14/22 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICKEY BILLS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-11414
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
PAUL KLEE, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 115)
Plaintiff Rickey Bills is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections. In this prisoner civil-rights action, Bills alleges that the
Defendants interfered with his right to access the courts and retaliated against him
for filing lawsuits. (See Sec. Am. Compl., ECF No. 67.)
On June 14, 2021, Bills filed a motion in which it appeared that he asked for
certain records be provided to him. (See Mot., ECF No. 103.) The assigned
Magistrate Judge did his best to review the motion, and on July 12, 2021, he denied
it. (See Order, ECF No. 107.)
Bills then filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his motion.
(See Obj., ECF No. 111.) The substance of the objection was one sentence:

1

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 122, PageID.1411 Filed 02/14/22 Page 2 of 4

At no time in this Plaintiff Rickey Bills “motion” that he
requested for an appointment of an attorney/counsel? In
(ECF No. 103) Plaintiff Bills did requested for “records”
…… Which the Magistrate denied.
(Id., PageID.1156.)
The objection did not explain why Bills believed that the Magistrate Judge
erred. Nor did the objection provide any basis to disturb the Magistrate Judge’s
resolution of Bills’ motion. The Court overruled the objection on August 3, 2021.
(See Order, ECF No. 113.)
On August 11, 2021, Bills filed what he called an “objection” to the Court’s
August 3 order. (See ECF No. 115.) The Court construes the “objection” as a motion
for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling. In that motion, Bills explains that he has
been unable to access many of his legal documents and unable to obtain the
assistance of a legal writer because of restrictions put in place due to the COVID-19
pandemic. (See id.) Bills also says that he is suffering from several significant health
problems that have prevented him from presenting his case to the Court in the
manner he would prefer. (See id.) Finally, Bills again asks for the production of
certain documents, including a transcript of what appears to be an interview he
participated in with an employee of the Michigan Department of Corrections. (See
id.)

2

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 122, PageID.1412 Filed 02/14/22 Page 3 of 4

Motions for reconsideration in this Court are governed by Local Rule 7.1(h).
In relevant part, that rule provides as follows:
Motions for reconsideration of non-final orders are
disfavored. They […] may be brought only upon the
following grounds:
(A) The court made a mistake, correcting the mistake
changes the outcome of the prior decision, and the
mistake was based on the record and law before the
court at the time of its prior decision;
(B) An intervening change in controlling law warrants a
different outcome; or
(C) New facts warrant a different outcome and the new
facts could not have been discovered with reasonable
diligence before the prior decision.
E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(2)(A)-(C). A motion for reconsideration is “not an
opportunity to re-argue a case” and/or “to raise [new] arguments which could, and
should, have been made” earlier. Sault Ste. Marie v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th
Cir. 1998).
The Court has carefully reviewed Bills’ motion for reconsideration and denies
it. The Court understands Bills’ frustrations about how restrictions put in place to
protect inmates from the COVID-19 pandemic have made it more difficult on Bills
to prosecute this case. The Court also sympathizes with Bills’ health problems.
However, Bills has not persuaded the Court that it erred when it upheld the
Magistrate Judge’s denial of his discovery motion. Simply put, Bills has still not
3

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 122, PageID.1413 Filed 02/14/22 Page 4 of 4

shown that the records and transcripts that he asks for exist and/or that he could not
have sought them from the Defendants while discovery was ongoing. Furthermore,
to the extent that Bills seeks documents from his prior counsel, it appears counsel
sent Bills those documents in July 2021. (See Ltr. from Counsel, ECF No. 115,
PageID.1279.)
For all of these reasons, Bills’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 14, 2022
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 14, 2022, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

4