Bennett v. MDOC et al
Filing
225
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 216 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)
Case 2:15-cv-14465-MFL-RSW ECF No. 225, PageID.3655 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CARL BENNETT,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-cv-14465
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 216)
Plaintiff Carl Bennett was previously a state inmate in the custody of the
Michigan Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”). In this action, Bennett says
that the Defendants violated his constitutional and statutory rights by, among other
things, failing to provide him necessary medications while he was in MDOC
custody. (See Fourth Am. Compl., ECF No. 121.) Defendants (except for Defendant
Kay Garland) sought dismissal of Bennett’s claims based on his failure to exhaust
his available administrative remedies. The Court held a bench trial on that defense
on November 18, 2021. (See 11/18/2021 Trial Tr., ECF No. 196.)
On March 29, 2022, the Court issued an order granting judgment in favor of
Defendants (other than Defendant Garland) on their failure-to-exhaust defense and
dismissing Bennett’s claims against those Defendants. (See Order, ECF No. 209.)
1
Case 2:15-cv-14465-MFL-RSW ECF No. 225, PageID.3656 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 6
On April 26, 2022, Bennett filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision. (See
Mot., ECF No. 216.) The Court ordered Defendants to respond to Bennett’s motion
(see Order, ECF No. 217), and Defendants have now done so. (See Def.s’ Resps.,
ECF Nos. 223, 224.)
The Court has carefully reviewed Bennett’s motion and Defendants’
responses, and for the reasons explained below, the motion is DENIED.
I
Bennett does not clearly identify the rule under which he seeks
reconsideration. The portion of his motion that purports to set forth the governing
legal standard provides:
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly
provide for a “motion for reconsideration.” In the Sixth
Circuit, however, a timely motion so styled arguably may
be “pursued either under Rule 59(e)-motion to alter or
amend-or under Rule 60(b)-relief from judgment or
order.” Peake v. First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of
Marquette, 717 F.2d 1016, 1019 (6th Cir. 1983) (footnotes
omitted); see also, Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141
F.3d 264, 268 (6th Cir. 1998).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), a district court will reconsider
a prior decision “if the moving party demonstrates: (1) a
clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence that was
not previously available to the parties; or (3) an
intervening change in controlling law.” Owner Operator
Indep. Drivers Ass’n, Inc. v. Arctic Exp., Inc., 288 F. Supp.
2d 895, 900 (S.D. Ohio 2003).
(Mot., ECF No. 216, PageID.3536.)
2
Case 2:15-cv-14465-MFL-RSW ECF No. 225, PageID.3657 Filed 06/01/22 Page 3 of 6
The Court will treat his motion as one brought under Rule 59(e). That is the
only rule for which Bennett has cited a governing legal standard. And while Bennett
also cited Rule 60(b) in passing, he did not specify which of the six sub-parts of that
rule may provide a ground for relief. Under these circumstances, the motion is
properly analyzed under Rule 59(e).1
II
Bennett makes two primary arguments in his motion for reconsideration. The
Court will consider each separately below. Neither basis persuades the Court to
reconsider its order dismissing Bennett’s claims against the Defendants (other than
Defendant Garland).
A
Bennett first argues that “the MDOC’s administrative remedies were not
available to [him].” (Id., PageID.3543-3545.) Bennett says that he “detailed all of
the ways that the administrative remedies were not available to him, particularly with
respect to his many transfers, in his post-trial brief,” and he insists that “[t]he Court
should properly consider that the process was not available to him and should
reinstate his claims.” (Id.) These are the same arguments that Bennett has previously
1
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for a “motion
for reconsideration,” this Court’s local rules do provide for such a motion. See Local
Rule 7.1(h). Bennett’s motion does not cite nor purport to seek relief under that local
rule. In any event, for the same reasons that Bennett is not entitled to relief under
Rule 59(e), he is not entitled to rule under Local Rule 7.1(h).
3
Case 2:15-cv-14465-MFL-RSW ECF No. 225, PageID.3658 Filed 06/01/22 Page 4 of 6
presented to the Court. The Court fully considered those arguments when it issued
its March 29 order, and it rejected them. Bennett has not shown any error in that
determination. Nor has he identified any new facts or a change in the law that would
require the Court to revisit that ruling. The Court therefore denies Bennett’s motion
for reconsideration to the extent that it is based on the alleged unavailability of his
administrative remedies.
B
Bennett next argues that he was “not required to exhaust” his administrative
remedies with respect at least some of the claims asserted in his Fourth Amended
Complaint – the operative pleading in this action – because “he was no longer a
prisoner” when he filed that pleading (the “No Longer a Prisoner Argument”). (Id.,
PageID.3542.) The Court is not persuaded that Bennett is entitled to reconsideration
on that basis.
Bennett raises the No Longer a Prisoner Argument far too late in the
proceedings. A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is “not an opportunity
to re-argue a case,” and thus such a motion may not be used “to raise [new]
arguments which could, and should, have been made” before the court ruled against
the moving party. Sault Ste. Marie v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, a district court properly denies a Rule 59(e) motion that is based upon
an argument that the moving party should have presented before the court entered
4
Case 2:15-cv-14465-MFL-RSW ECF No. 225, PageID.3659 Filed 06/01/22 Page 5 of 6
the order or judgment that is the subject of the motion. See id. (affirming denial of
motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) where
moving party “tardily” raised before district court the argument on which motion
was based); Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 612,
(6th Cir. 2010) (affirming denial of plaintiff’s motion under Rule 59 and explaining
that “[a] plaintiff cannot use a Rule 59 motion (or for that matter a post-judgment
Rule 15 motion) to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before
judgment issued”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Bennett could have and
should have raised his No Longer a Prisoner Argument long before this Court
entered its post-trial judgment against Bennett on the basis that he failed to exhaust
his claims. More specifically, he failed to raise that argument in response to the
Defendants’ motion to dismiss based upon his failure to exhaust, failed to raise the
argument prior to the bench trial on the failure-to-exhaust defense, and failed to raise
the argument in the post-trial brief that the Court permitted him to file. The Court
and the parties have spent substantial time and resources resolving the merits of
Defendants’ failure-to-exhaust defense, and now, after all that work has been done
and a final ruling issued, the Court will not permit Bennett to raise the No Longer a
Prisoner Argument for the very first time.
5
Case 2:15-cv-14465-MFL-RSW ECF No. 225, PageID.3660 Filed 06/01/22 Page 6 of 6
III
For all of the reasons explained above, Bennett’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 216) is DENIED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 1, 2022
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on June 1, 2022, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
(313) 234-5126
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?