Williams v. M.D.O.C. et al
OPINION and ORDER denying 4 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil Action No. 2:16-CV-14280
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et. Al.,
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff Donnell Williams filed a pro se case, in which he appeared to seek
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court summarily dismissed the case
without prejudice to plaintiff filing a proper complaint or complaints against the
proper defendants. Williams v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., No. 2:16-CV-14280, 2017
WL 345683 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2017).
Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow,
the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
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 (citing L.R.
7.1(g)(3)). 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 first argues that this Court erred in summarily dismissing his
complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The
Court did not dismiss the complaint on that basis. Plaintiff, in fact, is not required
to plead or prove exhaustion of his administrative remedies in his initial complaint
and this Court did not and does not screen prisoner complaints for exhaustion.
See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
Plaintiff further notes that this Court summarily dismissed his complaint
because he failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, nor did he
paid the $ 350.00 filing fee and the $ 50.00 administrative fee. Subsequent to the
dismissal, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. # 6] as
well as an affidavit in which he appears to argue he never received the initial
order of deficiency directing him to either submit this application or pay the filing
fee. [Dkt. # 7]. Plaintiff appears to suggest that this Court erred in dismissing the
case on that basis.
Even if this Court were to grant plaintiff an extension of time to cure this
deficiency, plaintiff would not be able to maintain this action for the reasons
stated by the Court in its initial dismissal order. In addition to the filing fee
deficiency, this Court also summarily dismissed the case because: (1) plaintiff
failed to file an actual complaint in this case, choosing instead to file one hundred
and fifty six pages worth of grievances, appeals of the denial of these grievances,
and other letters to wardens or grievance coordinators, (2) the filings failed to
comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)’s requirement that a claim for relief contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief,” (3) plaintiff appeared to be joining unrelated claims and defendants from
different prisons, and (4) plaintiff failed to provide sufficient copies of the
complaint for service on all of the defendants. Plaintiff does not allege that this
Court erred in dismissing the case for these reasons, nor has he attempted to
correct any of these additional deficiencies with the case. Accordingly, plaintiff is
not entitled to reconsideration because he failed to show this Court erred in
dismissing his case without prejudice.
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 4] Is DENIED.
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: August 16, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
parties/counsel of record on August 16, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
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?