Stevens v. Anzalone et al

Filing 8

ORDER Denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Judgment. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES ARTHUR STEVENS, #776148,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:18-CV-10619
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

v.
ANNA ANZALONE and the
39TH CIRCUIT COURT,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and for relief from
judgment brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), respectively,
concerning the Court’s dismissal of his pro se civil rights complaint, which he brought pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. First, to the extent that he seeks reconsideration of the
Court’s decision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), he is not entitled to relief. A motion
for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by a district court, either expressly or
by reasonable implication, will not be granted. 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 the dismissal order – because the 39th Circuit Court is not an entity subject to suit in a § 1983
action, based upon the Rooker/Feldman doctrine in part, for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, and due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Plaintiff fails to meet 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).
Second, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Under
that rule, a court will grant relief from a final judgment or order only upon a showing of one of the
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new
trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgement that has been reversed or
otherwise vacated; or applying it prospectively is not longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that
justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff makes no such showing. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. This case remains closed.

Dated: May 22, 2018

s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on May 22, 2018, the foregoing document was served on counsel of record via
electronic means and upon James Arthur Stevens via First Class mail at the address below:
James Arthur Stevens
776146
GUS HARRISON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
2727 E. BEECHER STREET
ADRIAN, MI 49221
s/J. McCoy
Case Manager

2