Spearman v. Parson et al

Filing 24

OPINION and ORDER Denying 21 MOTION to Amend or Alter Judgment 20 Order on Motion - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

Case 2:18-cv-10673-NGE-DRG ECF No. 24 filed 09/01/20

PageID.314

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RUFUS LAMAR SAVIN SPEARMAN,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-10673
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

v.
MARY PARSON, ET. AL.,

Defendants,
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION
TO ALTER OR TO AMEND JUDGMENT (ECF No. 21)
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment. For the reasons
that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. This Court
summarily dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(A) because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Spearman v. Parson, No. 2:18-CV-10673, 2018 WL 1522439 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2018),
appeal dismissed, No. 18-1393, 2018 WL 7960304 (6th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018), cert. denied,
139 S. Ct. 2622 (2019).
Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for an independent action for relief from
judgment. Plaintiff claimed that he had additional evidence in support of the earlier
allegations that he raised in his complaint that various prison officials, psychiatrists,
psychologists, or other mental health workers at several prisons had forced him against
his will to enter the Corrections Mental Health Program (CMHP) and had forcibly
medicated him with anti-psychotic medications, specifically Haldol. The Court denied the

1

Case 2:18-cv-10673-NGE-DRG ECF No. 24 filed 09/01/20

PageID.315

Page 2 of 3

motion because the independent action was an attempt by plaintiff to relitigate his claims
which this Court considered and rejected when summarily dismissing the original
complaint. (ECF No. 20).
Plaintiff has now filed a motion to alter or to amend judgment.
A motion to alter or amend judgment brought by a pro se prisoner pursuant to Rule
59 (e) may properly be analyzed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule
7.1 of the Eastern District of Michigan. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D.
Mich. 1999).
U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for
reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues
already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be
granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich.
2001). 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. MCI Telecommunications
Corp. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 79 F. Supp. 2d 768, 797 (E.D. Mich. 1999). A
palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke
v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied, because plaintiff is merely
presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication, when the Court summarily denied the original civil rights
complaint and again in denying the motion for an independent action. See Hence v. Smith,
49 F. Supp. 2d at 553.

2

Case 2:18-cv-10673-NGE-DRG ECF No. 24 filed 09/01/20

PageID.316

Page 3 of 3

ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to alter or amend
judgment (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.
s/ Nancy G. Edmunds__________
HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 1, 2020

3