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 MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE 

 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 Northern Division of 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 this 

Court has already entered judgment against Fritz in this matter, his motion will be construed as a 

motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 18, 2014 Order. 

1:14-cv-14058-TLL-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 01/14/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 84
- 2 - 

 Pursuant to Rule 7.1(h)(3), “the court will not grant motions for rehearing or 

reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or 

by reason of implication.” In a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate that the 

court and the parties were misled by a “palpable defect.” Id. A “palpable defect” is a defect that 

is obvious, clear, unmistakeable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 

(E.D. Mich. 1997). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old arguments, or to 

proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have presented earlier. Sault Ste. 

Marie v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998). 

 Here, Fritz is requesting that this Court transfer his case to the Southern Division of the 

Western District of Michigan. This Court has already determined that the interests of justice do 

not warrant transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a).1

 Fritz has not identified a “palpable defect” 

in the Court’s December 18, 2014, and therefore his motion will be denied. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Herman Fritz’s Motion to Change Venue (ECF No. 8) 

is DENIED. 

Dated: January 14, 2015 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

1

 In his motion, Fritz requests that this Court transfer the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. However, an action 

may only be transferred pursuant to § 1404(a) if venue is proper in the transferor district—and this Court has already 

determined that venue is not proper in this district. Because Fritz is proceeding pro se, the Court will construe his 

motion liberally as seeking transfer pursuant to § 1406(a), which permits transfer when venue is not proper in the 

transferor district. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally 

construed . . . .”) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976)). 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

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

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail and on Herman Fritz #801665, 933 McPherson, Elkhart, 

IN 46514 by first class U.S. mail on January 14, 2015. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:14-cv-14058-TLL-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 01/14/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 85