UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

HERMAN FRITZ, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-14058 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 On October 20, 2014, Herman Fritz filed a “Notice of Action for Removal” requesting 

“that this Federal District Court ORDER the above and herein described state court action 

REMOVED to this Federal District Court . . . .” ECF No. 1 at 5. Fritz requested that the instant 

action be removed from Cass County Circuit Court, which lies in the Southern Division of the 

Western District of Michigan. 

On December 18, 2014, the Court summarily dismissed Fritz’s Notice of Action for 

Removal without prejudice because venue was not proper in the Eastern District of Michigan. In 

addition, the Court concluded that the interests of justice did not warrant transfer of the case 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Accordingly, Fritz’s Notice was dismissed without prejudice. 

On December 30, 2014, Fritz filed a “Motion for Change for Venue” requesting that the 

action be transferred to the Southern Division of the Western District of Michigan. Because 

judgment had already been entered against Fritz, the motion was construed as a motion for 

reconsideration, which was denied. 

1:14-cv-14058-TLL-MJH Doc # 11 Filed 02/09/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 92
- 2 - 

On February 2, 2015, Fritz filed a Request for Reconsideration of Judgment. The request 

provides: 

Therefore this court constued my Motion for Change of Venue as Motion for 

Reconsideration and there are “palpable defect” on the website the court has 

pointed out to this petitioner. This defendant present the information attach to the 

court which place this inmate on parole in the State of Indiana and ask the court to 

review the said wedsite for update information. [sic throughout] 

Request 1, ECF No. 10. 

 This is the second motion for reconsideration of the Court’s December 18, 2014 

Judgment dismissing Fritz’s complaint. The Local Rules do not allow a party to file multiple 

motions for reconsideration of an order. Even if the Court had the authority to consider 

subsequent motions for reconsideration, Fritz’s second motion for reconsideration does not 

identify a “palpable defect by which the court . . . [has] been misled” or shown “that correcting 

the defect will result in a different disposition of the case,” as required by the Local Rules.1

 A 

motion for reconsideration that presents issues already ruled upon by the district court, either 

expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 

547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999). As discussed in the Court’s previous Orders, Fritz’s complaint was 

properly dismissed for improper venue; moreover, the interests of justice do not require 

transferring this case to the Western District of Michigan. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Fritz’s second Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 

10) is DENIED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: February 9, 2015 

 

1

 It appears that Fritz contends that there was a “palpable defect” in the website, but he does not identify what that 

defect is. Indeed, a review of the documents indicates that Fritz was transferred to the Indiana Department of 

Corrections, who released him on parole November 25, 2014—the facts relied upon by the Court in its December 

18, 2014 Opinion and Order. 

1:14-cv-14058-TLL-MJH Doc # 11 Filed 02/09/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 93
- 3 - 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon Herman Fritz 801665, at 933 McPherson, Elkhart, IN 46514 by 

first class U.S. mail on February 9, 2015. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:14-cv-14058-TLL-MJH Doc # 11 Filed 02/09/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 94