Jennings et al v. Reyes et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK COLIN JENNINGS II,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-cv-11864
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

v.
ANDY REYES, ET. AL.,
Defendant.
________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO AMEND
COMPLAINT [Dkt. 7]
This is a pro se civil rights complaint filed by Michigan prisoner Mark Colin Jennings
II, who is serving a lengthy sentence for his criminal sexual conduct convictions. The
original complaint alleged that defendant Andy Reyes, a child protective service worker,
and other named defendants, violated his constitutional rights when they transferred
custody of one of his children to defendant Laura Henderson. The Court summarily
dismissed the complaint because it involved a domestic relations matter (see Barber v.
Barber, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 582, 584, 16 L. Ed. 226 (1858)), and because it amounted to in
impermissible collateral challenge to an adverse order entered by a state probate court.
See Stephens v. Hayes, 374 F. App'x 620, 623 (6th Cir. 2010).
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and to amend the
complaint. Plaintiff now alleges that this case does not seek to alter a child custody order
because the person at issue is now an adult, and he alleges that the complained-of actions
occurred before any state court order was entered, thus the case is not a collateral attack
1

on a state court order barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust
Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923).
U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for
reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant
demonstrates a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled and
that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. Ward v.
Wolfenbarger, 340 F. Supp. 2d 773, 774 (E.D. Mich. 2004); Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp.
2d 547, 550-51 (E.D. Mich. 1999). A motion for reconsideration which merely presents “the
same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication,” shall
be denied. Ward, 340 F. Supp. 2d at 774.
Plaintiff’s new allegations do not alter the result reached by the Court upon initial
consideration of the complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants removed his daughter from
his custody on May 20, 2008, and transferred custody to his ex-wife without his consent.
Dkt. 7, at 2. Plaintiff alleges that the transfer of custody violated Michigan Court Rule
3.963(A) because “no exigent circumstances were involved.” Id. He also seems to allege
that no hearing or order was entered under Rule 3.963(B), a state law that includes a
provision for ex parte placement orders when a child is taken into protective custody. See
Rule 3.963(B)(4). Plaintiff concedes, however, that custody of his daughter and termination
of his parental rights were adjudicated in the state courts on or about September 16, 2009.
Id. Plaintiff fails to allege how the initial removal of his daughter by Defendants is not
“inextricably intertwined” with the ultimate decision of the state court to terminate his
parental rights. Peterson Novelties, Inc. v. City of Berkley, 305 F.3d 386, 390 (6th Cir.
2002) (federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate claims “inextricably
2

intertwined” with issues decided in state court proceedings). As such, his claims are barred
by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Court

Dated: June 17, 2016

3