UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PIO PETER ZAMMIT

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No.14-14155

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [8] AND

DISMISSING THE MICHIGAN REVENUE SERVICE

On October 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against the Internal Revenue

Service, the "Michigan Revenue Service", and over 87 "Michigan State Abortion clinics who

are acting in violation of the Michigan health code and the 14th Amendment . . . ." (Compl.

p. 1). The Court, sua sponte, dismissed the Abortion Clinic Defendants on the grounds that

Plaintiff failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction over these private institutions under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt #5). Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order

on January 9, 2015.1

 For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.

The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion for

reconsideration must "demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court . . . has been

misled . . . . " E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Here, Plaintiff argues that the Abortion Clinic

Defendants are considered state actors under § 1983--and thus subject to suit--because

they are funded and regulated by the state. This assertion, even if true, does not alter the

 1 Plaintiff's motion was received in chambers on January 9, 2015. All future submissions

must be filed with the Clerk of the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(e). 

2:14-cv-14155-NGE-EAS Doc # 11 Filed 02/05/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 129
Court's holding. Indeed, the Sixth Circuit has been clear that the "actions of a private entity

do not become state action merely because the government provides substantial funding

to the private party." Wolotsky v. Huhn, 960 F.2d 1331, 1336 (6th Cir. 1992). Moreover,

"state regulation of a private entity, even if it is extensive and detailed, is not enough to

support a finding of state action." Id. Finally, even if the Abortion Clinic Defendants were

acting under color of state law, Plaintiff does not have standing to pursue the claims of

third-parties in this context. See Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of

Cincinnati, 822 F.2d 1390, 1394 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding that, in the absence of two limited

scenarios not applicable here, a plaintiff "must assert his own legal rights and interests, and

cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.”).

Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment bars civil rights actions against a state, its

agencies, departments, and state officials sued in their official capacities unless the state

has waived its immunity and consented to suit or Congress has abrogated that immunity. 

See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). “The state of Michigan

. . . has not consented to being sued in civil rights actions in the federal courts,” Johnson

v. Unknown Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 545 (6th Cir. 2004), and Congress did not abrogate

state sovereign immunity when it enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot sue

the Michigan Revenue Service under § 1983.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's

December 5, 2014 Order is hereby DENIED. It is further ordered that the Michigan

Revenue Service is DISMISSED from this lawsuit. 

2

2:14-cv-14155-NGE-EAS Doc # 11 Filed 02/05/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 130
SO ORDERED.

S/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: February 5, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on February 5, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

3

2:14-cv-14155-NGE-EAS Doc # 11 Filed 02/05/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 131