Blanchard v. Andreou et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION[#4]. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN BLANCHARD,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-cv-10329
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

vs.

JOANNE ANDREOU, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[#4]
On February 16, 2016, this Court entered an Order Granting Plaintiff’s
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Action. See Dkt. No. 3.
The Court’s Order concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under
the domestic relations exception and the Younger abstention doctrine. The Court
further held that Defendant McIntyre was entitled to judicial immunity.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed on
March 11, 2016.

Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan provides:
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
-1-

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. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is ‘a defect that is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain.’” United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684
(E.D. Mich. 2004) (citing United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D.
Mich. 2001)). “[A] motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to
re-hash old arguments or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but
were not.” Smith ex rel. Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F. Supp. 2d 636, 637
(E.D. Mich. 2003) (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146
F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.1998)).
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect the correction of which will
result in a different disposition of this matter. This Court is without jurisdiction to
hear this matter pursuant to the domestic relations exception and, even if the exception
is inapplicable as Plaintiff argues, the Younger abstention doctrine precludes this
Court from intervening with the proceedings in the Illinois state court. The
proceedings are ongoing, which was alleged by Plaintiff in his Complaint, as well as
evidenced by the outstanding show cause order served on Plaintiff concerning his
failure to execute the assignment of his business assets to a trust for the benefit of his
minor children, which was ordered by Judge McIntyre in July of last year. Moreover,
Plaintiff has the ability to assert his claim that he is unable to execute the assignment

-2-

due to prison policy in the state court. Lastly, Illinois has a strong interest in matters
involving the support of minor children. Exercise of jurisdiction over the instant
action would “unduly interfere” with the legitimate activities of the state, thus
Younger abstention is appropriate under the circumstances. Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S.
327, 335-36 (1977).
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a palpable defect the correction of
which will result in a different disposition of the case. He is not entitled to the relief
he requests. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [#4] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2016
/s/ Gershwin A. Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys
of record and upon John Blanchard, #44943424,
at Milan Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 1000,
Milan, MI 48160 by electronic and/or ordinary
mail.
/s/ Tanya Bankston
Case Manager

-3-