UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Jack Mann, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Dr. Tabeling, et al. 

 Defendant. 

 

______________________________/ 

Case no. 14-cv-12762 

Hon. Judith E. Levy 

Mag. David R. Grand 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

RECONSIDERATION, FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, OR TO APPEAL [12 & 13] AND STRIKING 

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT [15] 

I. Introduction 

 This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Jack Mann’s Motions 

for Reconsideration (Dkts. 12 & 13). Mann seeks reconsideration of this 

Court’s order summarily dismissing his complaint, entered on January 

6, 2015. In the alternative, Mann seeks leave to file an amended 

complaint or permission to appeal the Court’s dismissal. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motions and strike 

plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

5:14-cv-12762-JEL-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 123
2 

II. Background 

The factual background of this case is fully set out in the Court’s 

Order of Summary Dismissal. The Court adopts the factual background 

as set out in that order. 

III. Amended Complaint

Although federal courts are inclined to grant leave to amend 

following a dismissal order, there are circumstances where amendment 

will not be allowed. See United States v. Frank B. Killian Co., 269 F.2d 

491, 493 (6th Cir.1959). Where the claims in a proposed amended 

complaint are wholly unrelated to the claims in the original complaint, 

granting leave to file a new complaint with those additional claims 

“would... be inappropriate.” Robinson v. Buffaloe & Assoc., PLC, 2013 

WL 4017045, *4 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) (citing Hetep v. Warren, 27 F.App’x 

308, 309 (6th Cir. 2001) and Dean v. Brandon, 162 F.3d 1161 (Table) 

(6th Cir. 1998)). The Court need not grant leave to amend when the 

amendment of the complaint would be futile, and the proposed 

amendment could not withstand a motion to dismiss. See Miller v. 

5:14-cv-12762-JEL-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 124
3 

Calhoun Cnty., 408 F.3d 803, 817 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Forman v. 

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

In plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, he seeks to file a 

habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging “ineffective 

assistance of counsel” against Dr. Tabeling, the Bureau of Prisons, and 

the United States for their failure to provide him access to adequate law 

library facilities. This claim is completely unrelated to the allegations 

set forth in plaintiff’s initial complaint which alleged Eighth and 

Fourteenth Amendment violations for denying plaintiff access to the 

Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program. The proposed amended 

complaint, furthermore, would be futile as plaintiff’s claims before this 

Court do not trigger a right to counsel. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint in this 

manner will be denied. 

IV. Motions for Reconsideration 

Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for 

reconsideration. Motions for reconsideration should not be granted if 

they “merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either 

5:14-cv-12762-JEL-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 125
4 

expressly or by reasonable implication.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). To 

prevail on a motion for reconsideration a movant must “not only 

demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and 

other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but 

also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition 

of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). “A palpable defect is a defect 

that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Witzke v. 

Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). The “palpable defect” 

standard is consistent with the standard for amending or altering a 

judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Henderson v. Walled Lake 

Consol. Schs., 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006). 

 In his motions for reconsideration, Mann argues that he has been 

subject to disparate treatment because he is similarly situated as others 

who have been granted access to the drug treatment program. (Dkts. 

12 & 13) 

The arguments raised by plaintiff in his motions for 

reconsideration were already considered, either explicitly or by 

reasonable implication, in the order of summary dismissal. It appears 

5:14-cv-12762-JEL-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 126
5 

that plaintiff is simply rephrasing the arguments raised in his initial 

complaint. For that reason, the motions for reconsideration will be 

denied. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999). 

V. Conclusion

 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that: 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Request to File an 

Amended Complaint (Dkt. 12) and Motion for Reconsideration or 

Request to File an Appeal (Dkt. 13) are DENIED. An appeal from the 

Court’s Order of Summary Dismissal would be frivolous and could not 

be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United 

States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). 

 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 15) shall be STRICKEN from 

the docket. 

Dated: March 6, 2015 s/Judith E. Levy___________ 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

 United States District Judge 

5:14-cv-12762-JEL-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 127
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon 

counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 6, 2015. 

 s/Felicia M. Moses__________ 

 FELICIA M. MOSES 

 Case Manager 

5:14-cv-12762-JEL-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 03/06/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 128