Fuller v. Washington et al
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (BSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RALEEM-X (a/k/a CURTIS FULLER),
#211080
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE No. 2:21-CV-12141
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 7)
Plaintiff raleem-x1 (a/k/a Curtis Fuller)2 filed a pro se civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff is a state prisoner
currently incarcerated at the Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility in
Muskegon, Michigan. In addition to his August 27, 2021 complaint, the
plaintiff filed motions for waiver of fees and costs and for summons of
complaint due to his indigent status. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) On September 29,
The plaintiff has exhibited a clear preference his name be presented in
lowercase. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.34.)
1
The Court obtained the plaintiff's other name from prior civil cases as well
as from the Michigan Department of Corrections' Offender Tracking
Information System (OTIS), of which this Court may take judicial notice.
Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821, n. 3 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
2
2021, the Court denied the plaintiff’s motions and dismissed the complaint
because of his status as a “three-striker” under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, which renders him ineligible to file without prepayment of fees and
costs. (ECF No. 5.)
Now before the Court is the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. (ECF No. 7.) As explained
below, the motion will be denied.
Provisions of Rule 60 pertinent to the plaintiff’s motion permit a court
to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; . . . [or] (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6). Local Rule 7.1 also governs motions for
reconsideration. It states that a movant must “demonstrate a palpable
defect by which the Court and the parties . . . have been misled [and] show
that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.”
E.D. Mich. R. 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is obvious,
clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Michigan Dep't of Treasury v.
Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
The plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Court made a mistake or
that any other provision of Rule 60 justifies relief. Nor has he shown a
-2-
“palpable error” by which the Court was misled, or that a different outcome
would result from correction of any error.
First, the plaintiff argues that in its order of dismissal the Court
erroneously “listen[ed] to its sister court in the [W]estern District,” and that
he had not previously filed three civil rights complaints which fell under the
three-strike rule. (Mot., ECF No. 7, PageID.361.) He argues earlier “strikes”
in that district were the result of filing errors or voluntary dismissals. (Id. at
PageID.362.)
Contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions, the Court did not rely entirely on
cases from the Federal District Court, Western District of Michigan, in
determining the plaintiff was a “three-striker.” While disagreeing with the
plaintiff’s assertion that his Western District cases should not be counted,
the Court notes its order listed seven qualifying cases from this district,
more than enough to establish his status. (See ECF No. 5, PageID.35455.)
Next, the plaintiff argues the Court erred in reading his motion for
waiver of fees and costs (ECF No. 2) to mean that he sought to proceed in
forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7, PageID.362.) He asserts instead that he “only
asked to be recognize[d] in Private Sovereign Sui Indigenous[,]” and that
he was prepared to pay the filing fee. (Id.)
-3-
The Court did not misread the plaintiff’s motion to waive fees and
costs, because the motion’s prayer for relief requested “[a]ll fees and cost
be weaver [sic] in this civil action. . .” (Mot., ECF No. 2, PageID.45.)
Although the plaintiff’s reasoning was based on assertions of immunity to
those fees and his status as Sui Juris Indigenous and a “flesh and bone
man” (see, e.g., id. at PageID.44), the plaintiff clearly sought to proceed in
this lawsuit without prepaying fees and costs. His inclusion of over 300
pages of his institutional trust fund account (see ECF Nos. 2, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3,
2-4) further indicated an interest in meeting the requirements to proceed
without prepaying costs and fees.
Because the plaintiff made that request, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
“Proceedings in forma pauperis,” applies to him. That includes section
1915(g), which requires dismissal of prisoner complaints if a plaintiff
has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger
of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g). As noted above, more than three of the plaintiff’s
previous lawsuits were dismissed pursuant to section 1915(g).
Furthermore, for the reasons stated in the Court’s order of September 29,
-4-
2021, the plaintiff has not demonstrated he is in imminent danger. (ECF
No. 5, PageID.355-57.)
Finally, the plaintiff asserts he was only waiting for a case number
from the court so he could pay the filing fees. (ECF No. 7, PageID.362.)
The Court dismissed this case without prejudice to the plaintiff re-filing his
case as a new complaint, if he first pays all fees and costs. (ECF No. 5,
PageID.357.) He may still follow that course of action if he chooses.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 7) is
DENIED and the case remains closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 6, 2021
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
December 6, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on Curtis Fuller aka Raleem-X #211080, Earnest C. Brooks
Correctional Facility, 2500 S. Sheridan Drive,
Muskegon Heights, MI 49444.
s/B Sauve
Deputy Clerk
-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?