UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICKY BILLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. ROMANOWSKI, ET AL., 

Defendant.

 /

Case Number: 2:15-CV-11417

HON. GERALD E. ROSEN

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court’s Order of Summary Dismissal. 

The requirements for the granting of motions for reconsideration are set

forth in Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h), which provides in relevant

part:

Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, 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

reasonable implication. The 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.

1

2:15-cv-11417-GER-APP Doc # 9 Filed 09/23/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 85
L.R. 7.1(h)(3).

As provided in LR 7.1(h)(3), in order to prevail on a motion for

reconsideration, the movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which

the Court has been misled, he must also show that a different disposition of the

case must result from a correction of that defect. A “palpable defect” is “a defect

that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” United States v. Lockette,

328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Moreover, a motion that merely

presents the same issues already ruled upon by the

Court -- either expressly or by reasonable implication -- will not be granted. L.R.

7.1(h)(3); see also Flanagan v. Shamo, 111 F. Supp. 2d 892, 894 (E.D. Mich.

2000).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) also may be used as a vehicle for seeking

reconsideration of a court’s prior ruling. Generally, there are three situations which

justify reconsideration under Rule 59(e): (1) to correct a clear error of law; (2) to

account for newly discovered evidence; (3) to accommodate an intervening change

in controlling law; or (4) to prevent manifest injustice. Intera Corp. v. Henderson,

428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005); see also GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l

Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). However, like the Local Rule,

motions under Rule 59(e) “are not intended as a vehicle to relitigate previously

2

2:15-cv-11417-GER-APP Doc # 9 Filed 09/23/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 86
considered issues; should not be utilized to submit evidence which could have been

previously submitted in the exercise of reasonable diligence; and are not the proper

vehicle to attempt to obtain a reversal of a judgment by offering the same

arguments previously presented.” Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement v.

Continental Biomass Industries, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 2d 721, 726 (E.D. Mich. 2000). 

“A motion to alter or reconsider a judgment is an extraordinary remedy and should

be granted sparingly.” Plaskon Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 904 F.

Supp. 644, 669 (N.D. Ohio 1995); United States v. Limited, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 541,

547 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (citing Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A ., 153 F.R.D.

689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994), Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Trabosh, 812 F. Supp.

522, 524 (E.D. Pa.1992)).

By application of the Local Rule and foregoing authorities, the Court will

deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. By this motion, Plaintiff is merely

attempting to obtain a reversal of the Court’s decision by presenting issues already

ruled upon, if not expressly, at least, by reasonable implication. Plaintiff seeks

reversal of the Court’s summary dismissal of his § 1983 complaint. The Court

summarily dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint because his dispute about the

substitution of a German chocolate cake for a pecan pie he had ordered through a

prison fundraiser instead of being refunded the $9.50 he had paid did not present a

3

2:15-cv-11417-GER-APP Doc # 9 Filed 09/23/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 87
constitutional claim.

Plaintiff does not dispute that his claim is essentially one for the loss of

personal property, i.e., the $9.50 he spent on the pecan pie. As the Court explained

in its August 24, 2015 Order, a prisoner’s claim for the loss of personal property

fails to state a claim under § 1983 when the state provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy. As was the case when the Court originally addressed this

matter, Plaintiff has not shown in the present motion that Michigan’s judicial

remedies are inadequate or that it would be futile to present his claim in the

Michigan state courts. Plaintiff has an adequate remedy in the state courts. See

Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995). It was for these reasons that

the Court determined that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted under § 1983, and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the Court’s decision was based upon

a palpable defect by which the Court was misled. Therefore, the Court denies

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of this matter.

The Court will also deny leave to appeal this decision in forma pauperis. An

appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the court determines that it is not

taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Supreme Court has interpreted

“good faith” as stated in § 1915 as “not frivolous”. Coppedge v. United States, 369

4

2:15-cv-11417-GER-APP Doc # 9 Filed 09/23/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 88
U.S. 438, 445-446 (1962). The Supreme Court has further defined a “frivolous”

action as one that “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989).

For the reasons stated in this Court’s Opinion and Order of August 24, 2015,

Petitioner’s Section 1983 claims are factually and/or legally deficient. The Court,

therefore, makes the finding that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous because they lack

an arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, this Court determines that any

appeal from the Court’s decision would be frivolous and, therefore, hereby certifies

that an appeal would not taken in good faith. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(3), the Court determines that Plaintiff’s appeal may not be taken in forma

pauperis.

For all of the foregoing reasons,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

[Dkt. # 8] is DENIED. Leave to appeal this decision in forma pauperis is also

DENIED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: September 23, 2015

5

2:15-cv-11417-GER-APP Doc # 9 Filed 09/23/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 89
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record on September 23, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary

mail.

s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5135

6

2:15-cv-11417-GER-APP Doc # 9 Filed 09/23/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 90