Thompson v. Parole Board Members et al

Filing 14

ORDER Denying 9 Request to Reopen Case. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LANIER THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 15-CV-13897
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
PAROLE BD. MEMBERS., et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO REOPEN CASE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’S Request to Reopen Case. On
December 30, 2015, the Court entered an Order of Summary Dismissal and Severance
of Claims. (Doc. No. 9) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the request.
An amendment of an order after a judgment has been entered is governed by
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) provides that any
motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 28 days after entry of
the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Motions to alter or amend judgment may be
granted if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening
change in controlling law or to prevent manifest injustice. GenCorp., Inc. v. American
Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). 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). 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)).
The Court finds Plaintiff is re-hashing the same arguments raised in his
previous submissions to support his claim that the Parole Board Members erred in
denying his parole. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a palpable defect by which the
Court was misled.
Accordingly,
2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request to Reopen the Case (Doc. No. 9) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any appeal from this Court’s Order is
frivolous and not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11
(6th Cir. 1997).

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: April 29, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on April 29, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3