Amponsah v. Randall

Filing 7

ORDER Denying Reconsideration, Leave to Amend, and Request to Re-Open Case re 6 Request filed by Mabel Amponsah. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MABEL AMPONSAH,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-13531
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
RANDALL,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION, LEAVE TO AMEND,
AND REQUEST TO RE-OPEN CASE
On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff Mabel Amponsah filed this civil action in which she
asserted claims against a police officer named Randall. (See Complaint, ECF #1.) On
November 13, 2017, the Court entered an order in which it summarily dismissed the
Complaint without prejudice. (See ECF #5.) The Court held that Amponsah’s claims
lacked an arguable basis in law and fact because, for instance, (1) Amponsah claimed that
Officer Randall violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment but did not allege that the officer acted against her based upon
any classification relevant to those provisions, and (2) Amponsah asserted a claim for
breach of contract but did not allege any facts that even arguably supported that claim. (See
id. at Pg. ID 21.) The Court also highlighted that Amponsah sought as relief an order
requiring that bathroom privileges and toilet paper be made available to her and other
members of the public. (See id.)

1

On November 22, 2017, Amponsah filed a “Brief of Response to the Dismissal of
Plainted [sic] Complaint and Plaintiff [sic] Request for Amended Complaint” with an
attached proposed Amended Complaint. (See ECF #6.) The Court construes this filing as
either a motion for reconsideration or a motion to re-open the case and for leave to file an
amended complaint.
To the extent the motion is one for reconsideration, it is DENIED. The Court
declines to reconsider its ruling because Amponsah has failed to demonstrate a palpable
defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled and/or that correcting any such
defect, if one existed, would result in a different disposition of the case. See Local Rule
7.1(h).
To the extent that the motion is one to re-open the case and to file an amended
complaint, it is DENIED. The proposed Amended Complaint is substantially identical to,
and does not cure the deficiencies in, Amponsah’s original Complaint. Amponsah still
asserts non-viable claims based upon Officer Randall’s alleged failure to notify other
officers that she had made a police report, and she still seeks as relief for his alleged
misconduct a court order ensuring bathroom privileges and toilet paper availability in all
commercial buildings. (See ECF #6 at Pg. ID 24-25.) Her request for relief underscores
that this is not a viable civil action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 29, 2017
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on November 29, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone] 

3