Washington v. Sanchez et al
Filing
19
OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 17 Objection to Court's October 27, 2021 OPINION AND ORDER Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KALVIN L. WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 21-cv-11725
v.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
RICHARD SANCHEZ, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO THE
COURT’S OCTOBER 27, 2021 OPINION AND ORDER (ECF NO. 17)
I.
INTRODUCTION
On October 27, 2021, this Court entered an Opinion and Order Granting
Plaintiff’s Letter-Motion to Amend (ECF No. 5), Denying Remaining Pending
Motions (ECF Nos. 7-12), and Summarily Dismissing Complaint. ECF No. 17.
Specifically, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) because it was frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. ECF No. 13, PageID.87. The Court found Plaintiff’s claims
concerning the validity of his conviction were barred by the favorable-termination
requirement set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Id.
Additionally, while Plaintiff alleged he has been forced to perform sex acts on
several men while incarcerated, he did not attribute his allegations to any particular
1
defendants. Id. at PageID.88. He thus failed to meet the pleading standard
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Id. Accordingly, the Court
dismissed the case without prejudice. Id. at PageID.89.
Plaintiff timely filed a Notice of Appeal on November 4, 2021. ECF No. 15.
However, eight days after doing so, he filed an Objection to the Court’s October
27, 2021 Order. ECF No. 17, which the Court will construe as a Motion for
Reconsideration. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Objection must be
DENIED.
II.
LAW & ANALYSIS
A. The District Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff’s Post-Judgment
Motion.
This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s Objection because
Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal in this case. A notice of appeal generally
“confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control
over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Marrese v. American
Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985) (citing Griggs v.
Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam)); see also
Workman v. Tate, 958 F. 2d 164, 167 (6th Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that the
filing of a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction over the merits of the appeal to the
appellate court.”).
2
Because Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction to
reconsider its October 27, 2021 Opinion and Order. Workman, 958 F. 2d at 167;
see also Raum v. Norwood, 93 F. App'x. 693, 695 (6th Cir. 2004) (“We also note
that the plaintiffs deprived the district court of jurisdiction by filing a notice of
appeal before the district court had a chance to make a decision on the motion to
reconsider.”); Jenkins v. Washington, No. 2:21-CV-11708, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
179549, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 21, 2021) (“This Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because plaintiff has filed a notice of
appeal in this case.”).
B. Plaintiff has Not Shown He is Entitled to Relief under E.D. Mich. L.R.
7.1(h)(3).
Even if the Court retained jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Objection, it would
still be denied. To successfully move for reconsideration in this District, the
movant must demonstrate that there is a palpable defect in the opinion or order
under attack and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of
the case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3); Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th
Cir. 2011). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest, or plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys Health Sys., 704 F. Supp. 2d 688, 709
(E.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp.
2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001)).
3
Plaintiff’s Objection is unclear. It appears he filed two separate civil
lawsuits relating to his 2004 conviction: the instant action and Washington v.
Dawson et al., 21-cv-12062-NGE-PTM. See ECF No. 17, PageID.97. He seems
to object to the Court granting his motion to amend to add certain defendants
because the motion was improperly filed in this case instead of Dawson. Id.
Plaintiff also appears to suggest the Court incorrectly refused “to correct [the]
amended cover sheet belonging to another civil action.” Id. Thus, Plaintiff
requests “all defendants and exhibits be placed in the correct civil action.” Id. at
PageID.98.
While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s frustration in managing
multiple lawsuits, he has not shown a “palpable defect” in the Court’s original
Opinion and Order. The Court summarily dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint because
it found his claims were either barred by Heck or did not meet the pleading
standard required by Federal Rule of Procedure 8(a). Plaintiff’s Objection does not
address either issue, and his Complaint would still be dismissed even if he received
the relief he seeks. The filing advances no defect that would change this Court’s
conclusion that he has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1
Court also notes Plaintiff’s request—as the Court understands it—is not
within this Court’s powers. The Court advises Plaintiff that any requests seeking
to amend the Complaint in “Case A” should be filed in “Case A,” not “Case B,” as
1
The
4
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated above, Plaintiff’s Objection to the
Court’s October 27, 2021 Order (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Gershwin A. Drain__________________
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 10, 2021
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
December 10, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Teresa McGovern
Case Manager
judges do not have the authority to rule on a matter that is assigned to a different
district judge.
5
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?