Johnson v. Corley et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRANCE D. JOHNSON, #317128,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-13045
HONORABLE GERALD E. ROSEN

v.
TAMMARA CORLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration concerning the
Court’s dismissal of his pro se civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his
complaint, Plaintiff challenged the validity of his 2012 probation revocation asserting that his Fourth,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the use of false/fraudulent information during
those proceedings. He named probation officers, supervisors, and the Saginaw County Circuit Court
Probation Department as the defendants and sued them in their personal and official capacities. He
requested monetary damages for his alleged unconstitutional imprisonment. The Court dismissed
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. See Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005).
Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. A motion for reconsideration which presents issues
already ruled upon by the district court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be
granted. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall &
Assoc., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Plaintiff raises such issues in his motion.

The Court properly dismissed the complaint for the reasons stated in its opinion. Plaintiff has not
met his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled or his burden of
showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule
7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. This case is closed. No further
pleadings should be filed in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Judge
Dated: October 24, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel
of record on October 24, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

2