Sultaana v. Cunliffe et al
Filing
35
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 5/22/18. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, denies plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. 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. 31 ) (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
HAKEEM SULTAANA,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
:
:
ERIKA CUNLIFFE, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------
CASE NO. 1:18CV67
OPINON & ORDER
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Hakeem Sultaana has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 9, 2018 order
dismissing his case. (Doc. No. 31). He contends the Court erred in dismissing his complaint
because the defendants were in “default” and because the Court incorrectly determined he did not
allege plausible claims. He also objects to the Court’s characterization of his allegations. He
contends he “did not claim in his COMPLAINT that ‘the original jury verdict forms in his trial
were lost by the State Court Judge, and that he objected to the scanned version[s] that were
provided for purposes of his appeal,’” as the Court stated. (Id. at 2.) Rather, he claims his
complaint “revolves around the manufacturing of purported jury verdict forms that were
supplemented in his direct appeal.” (Id.) He contends his complaint is sufficient to survive a
dismissal and that the Court “must hold a default judgment hearing.” (Id. at 5.)
Reconsideration of a judgment is warranted only if there has been: (1) a clear error of law;
(2) an intervening change in the law; (3) newly discovered evidence; or (4) a showing of manifest
injustice. Jones v. Gobbs, 21 F. App’x 322, 323 (6th Cir. 2001), citing GenCorp, Inc. v.
American Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 832 (6th Cir. 1999).
Case No. 1:18CV67
Gwin, J.
The Court does not find the plaintiff has demonstrated any circumstance warranting
reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing his federal complaint pursuant to the Court’s own
review. The plaintiff’s arguments do not alter the Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s federal
claims, against a clerk of court and his defense lawyers, were properly dismissed. Further, the
Court does not agree with the plaintiff that the defendants were in default and that he is entitled to
a default hearing.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 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: May 22, 2018
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-
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?