UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JERRY PATRICK,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF MICHIGAN and

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendants.

/

Case Number: 2:14-CV-13785

HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION ALTER

OR AMEND JUDGMENT, CORRECTING COURT DOCKET, AND

TRANSFERRING CASE TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment

under Rule 59(e). The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the two

named defendants, the State of Michigan and the Michigan Department of Corrections,

are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits under § 1983. Plaintiff now

seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) on the ground that the entire complaint should not

have been dismissed because he named two additional defendants, Mr. Arnsman (a

librarian at the Pugsley Correctional Facility), and Mr. Hanson (a classification director at

Pugsley), who were not recognized by the Court.

The granting of a motion under Rule 59(e) is within the sound discretion of the

2:14-cv-13785-VAR-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/07/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 37
district court. McMahon v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 870 F.2d 1073, 1078 (6th Cir.

1989). The purpose of Rule 59(e) is to allow a district court to correct its own mistakes. 

White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Sec., 455 U.S 445, 450 (1982). In

this case, an error occurred. The Court’s docket failed to identify two additional

defendants named in Plaintiff’s complaint, Mr. Arnsman and Mr. Hanson. The Court did

not address Plaintiff’s allegations against these defendants. The Court, therefore, grants

Plaintiff’s motion and orders the Court’s docket corrected to reflect both Mr. Arnsman

and Mr. Hanson as defendants. Plaintiff’s claims against the State of Michigan and

Michigan Department of Corrections are not reinstated. 

The addition of Mr. Arnsman and Mr. Hanson necessitates a change of venue. The

proper venue for civil actions in which jurisdiction is not based on diversity of citizenship

is the judicial district where: (1) any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same

state; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or

a substantial part of the property in question is situated; or (3) any defendant may be

found if there is no other district in which plaintiff may bring the action. See 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b). The conduct that forms the basis for the complaint occurred in Kingsley,

Michigan. Defendants Arnsman and Hanson are located at the Pugsley Correctional

Facility in Kingsley, Michigan. Kingsley is located in Grand Traverse County, which lies

in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1). The case will be

transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

2

2:14-cv-13785-VAR-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/07/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 38
(ECF No. 9), and ORDERS the Clerk to correct the docket to reflect two additional

defendants: Mr. Arnsman and Mr. Hanson. The Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to

transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

 S/Victoria A. Roberts

VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: 10/7/2015

3

2:14-cv-13785-VAR-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 10/07/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 39