Dunbar v. Heyns et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration and Related Requests in 19 , 21 , 22 Letters. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH DUNBAR,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-11573
Honorable Denise Page Hood

v.
DIRECTOR DANIEL HEYNS, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
and RELATED REQUESTS IN LETTERS
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration filed
October 20, 2015. (Doc. No. 20) . On October 8, 2015, the Court entered an Order
Dismissing the action without prejudice. (Doc. No. 18) For the reasons set forth
below, the Court denies the motion.
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
shall be allowed unless the Court orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2).
Defendant’s motion is timely filed. The Local Rule 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.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). 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)).
Plaintiff in his Motion for Reconsideration asserts that he submitted certain
documents to the Court and to Deputy Clerk S. Burns. The Court’s review of the
documents submitted show that none of the documents submitted comply with the
Court’s previous orders. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and letters re-hash the
same arguments previously raised by Plaintiff. Any new argument not raised by
Plaintiff in previous submissions cannot be considered by the Court in a Motion for
Reconsideration.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration under E.D. Mich.
LR 7.1 and relief requested in related documents (Doc. No. 20; See also Doc. Nos. 19,
2

21, 22) are DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: December 21, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on December 21, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3