Martin v. Pinkney

Filing 14

Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 12/13/17 denying plaintiff's motion to alter or amend for the reasons set forth in this order. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (Related Doc. 12 ) (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
TRAMAINE E. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF CLIFFORD PINKNEY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17 CV 981
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
ORDER

This prisoner civil rights action filed by Plaintiff pro se Tramaine Martin was dismissed
on September 5, 2017, on the ground that Plaintiff failed to set forth a valid claim for relief. The
Court further held that, even had Plaintiff set forth an otherwise valid claim, the Defendant is not
liable for damages under § 1983 solely because he employs and supervises jail personnel, as
respondeat superior is not a proper basis for such liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now before
the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF # 12), wherein he essentially
argues he stated enough in his Complaint to set forth a valid claim for relief against the named
Defendant.
A court may grant a motion to amend or alter judgment if there is a clear error of law or
newly discovered evidence exists, an intervening change in controlling law occurs, or to prevent
manifest injustice. See Gencorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th
Cir.1999). “It is not the function of a motion to reconsider either to renew arguments already
considered and rejected by a court or ‘to proffer a new legal theory or new evidence to support a
prior argument when the legal theory or argument could, with due diligence, have been
discovered and offered during the initial consideration of the issue.’” McConocha v. Blue Cross

& Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio, 930 F.Supp. 1182, 1184 (N.D. Ohio, 1996) (quoting In re August,
1993 Regular Grand Jury, 854 F.Supp. 1403, 1408 (S.D. Ind., 1994)).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s statements in his Motion to Alter or Amend and finds
that he has not shown a clear error of law or newly discovered evidence exists, an intervening
change in controlling law has occurred, or that manifest injustice would be prevented if the case
was reinstated.
Accordingly, the Motion is denied.. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2017

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2