Geldys v. Dearborn Heights, City of

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 7 MOTION to Vacate Order Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (SBur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

GEDIMINAS J. GELDYS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-11729
v.
CITY OF DEARBORN HEIGHTS,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
VACATE ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order Dismissing Case
seeking reconsideration of the court’s prior order granting leave to file in forma pauperis
and dismissing the case. (Dkt. #7.) Defendant has not filed any response brief, and the
court has determined that no response or hearing is necessary. See E.D. Mich LR
7.1(h)(2). For the reasons stated below, this court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.
Plaintiff filed the instant case seeking to stop the city from executing a demolition
order against his house. (Dkt. #1.) This court granted an associated application to
proceed in forma pauperis, but in the same order granted sua sponte dismissal of
Plaintiff’s case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court concluded that
Plaintiff’s requested relief was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits
federal district courts from reviewing state court determinations. (Dkt. #6.) Plaintiff’s
motion does not address this defect in his case as identified by the court’s prior order
but instead focuses on the underlying merits of the condemnation action and whether
he felt he received adequate process. However, as described in this court’s earlier

decision, the state appellate court already addressed this question and determined that
“[t]here is nothing in the record remotely suggesting that [Mr. Geldys’] procedural and
substantive due process rights were violated. [Mr. Geldys] was afforded notice and an
opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner for purposes
of procedural due process, and, for purposes of substantive due process, the city’s
demolition procedures applicable to dangerous structures advanced a reasonable
government interest and were not arbitrary or capricious.” Heights v. Geldys, No.
321729, 2015 WL 6167512, *5 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2015).
Subject to the court’s discretion, a motion for reconsideration shall be granted
only if the movant “demonstrate[s] a palpable defect by which the court and the parties
. . . have been misled” and “show[s] 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.’” Buchanan v. Metz, 6 F. Supp. 3d 730,
752 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D.
Mich. 2004)). The court “will not grant motions for . . . reconsideration that merely
present the same issues ruled upon by the court.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
Nothing within Plaintiff’s motion has identified a palpable defect within the court’s
prior opinion. Instead it recites issues which were already deemed insufficient to support
a claim as presented in his complaint, (Dkt. #1), and Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order, (Dkt. #5). As such, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order Dismissing Case (Dkt.

# 7) is DENIED.

2

S/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 9, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, February 9, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Shawna C. Burns
Case Manager Generalist
[phone]

2/9/17:S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\16-11729.GELDYS.denyreconsider.bss.wpd

3