Aikens v. Mack et al
OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 37 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 15-cv-12016
Honorable Linda V. Parker
JOLANDRA MACK, et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [ECF NO. 37]
Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, commenced this civil rights action against
Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 3, 2015. The matter was referred
to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen for all pretrial proceedings, and on February
21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending this Court grant motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 21, 30)
filed by Defendant Jolandra Mack and Defendant Krista Boyd. Plaintiff filed
objections to the R&R. In an opinion and order entered on March 27, 2017, this
Court adopted Magistrate Judge Whalen’s recommendation and entered judgment
in favor of Defendants. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (ECF No. 37.)
For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
Local Rule 7.1(h) provides that a motion for reconsideration only should be
granted if the movant demonstrates that the Court and the parties have been misled
by a palpable defect and a different disposition of the case would result from a
correction of such defect. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Palpable defects are those
which are “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Mich. Dep’t of
Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “It is an
exception to the norm for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration.”
Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F. Supp. 2d 759, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “[A]
motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old
arguments or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but were
not.” Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F. Supp. 2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich.
2003) (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F. 3d 367,
374 (6th Cir.1998)). Therefore, a motion that merely presents the same issues
already ruled upon by the Court shall not be granted. Id.
Motions to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) may be granted
only if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening
change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice. Gencorp., Inc. v. Am.
Int’l Underwriters, 178 F. 3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). “Rule 59(e) permits a court
to alter or amend a judgment, but it ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to
raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry
of judgment.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n. 5 (2008) (citing
11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, 127-28 (2d ed.
1995)). As several judges in this District have stated,
“[Rule 59(e)] motions . . . are not intended as a vehicle to
relitigate previously considered issues; should not be utilized to
submit evidence which could have been previously submitted in
the exercise of reasonable diligence; and are not the proper
vehicle to attempt to obtain a reversal of a judgment by offering
the same arguments previously presented.”
Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement v. Cont’l Biomass Indus., Inc., 86 F.
Supp. 2d 721, 726 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (quoting Nagle Indus., Inc. v. Ford Motor
Co., 175 F.R.D. 251, 254 (E.D. Mich. 1997), aff’d 194 F. 3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.
1999)). “[A motion to alter or reconsider a judgment] ‘is an extraordinary remedy
and should be granted sparingly because of the interests in finality and
conservation of scarce judicial resources.’” In re J & M Salupo Dev. Co., 388 B.R.
795, 805 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Ltd. Inc.,
179 F.R.D. 541, 547 (S.D. Ohio 1998)).
In her motion, as she did in her objection to Magistrate Judge Whalen’s
R&R, Plaintiff mostly reiterates the original arguments she made in response to
Defendants’ summary judgment motions. She does not present any new
information that would warrant a different treatment of her claims. Plaintiff
improperly attempts to use the relief afforded in Rule 59(e) as a vehicle to restate
her previous arguments. Therefore, Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that she
is entitled to relief under Local Rule 7 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 37)
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 11, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 11, 2017, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
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?