UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH F. OLIVARES,

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 15-11630

ANN ARBOR HOUSING COMMISSION, HON. AVERN COHN

TAYLOR HOUSING COMMISSION,

JOHN CARTER, 

Defendants.

___________________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Docs. 15, 16)

I. Introduction

This is a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the housing context. Plaintiff

Joseph F. Olivares1

 proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in state court against

defendants the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, the Taylor Housing Commission and

John Carter. Plaintiff took issue with an inspection at his apartment. Defendants

removed the case to federal court on the grounds of federal question jurisdiction.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 7). The Court granted

the motion and dismissed the case. (Doc. 13). 

1

As the Court noted, plaintiff has been a frequent pro se filer in this district. The

majority, if not all, of plaintiff’s complaints have been summarily dismissed. See

Olivares v. Performance Contr., et al., 02-74585; Olivares v. Fifteenth District Court, et

al., 05-71275; Olivares v. Sutton, et al., 07-15201; Olivares v. Coy, et al., 12-10787,

Olivares v. Tallahassee Police Dept., 14-10097; Olivares v. Leon, County, et al., 14-

10098; Olivares v. Michigan Workers’ Compensation Agency, 15-11004. Case Nos. 14-

10098 and 15-11004 were before the undersigned. Plaintiff also sued two individuals at

the Ann Arbor Housing Commission making claims regarding the termination of his

tenancy at a different apartment. Olivares v. Yaroch, 13-12982. That case was recently

dismissed on summary judgment. See Doc. 75 in case no. 13-12982.

2:15-cv-11630-AC-MJH Doc # 17 Filed 12/18/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 177
Thereafter, plaintiff filed a paper styled “In Rebuttal to Defendant’s Further

Statements and Demand for Jury Trial in remand to 22nd District Circuit Court Under

Rooker -Feldman Doctrine” (Doc. 15) and a “Motion to Set Aside Judgement in

Dismissal and Remand Back to the 22nd Circuit Court in Reconsideration.” (Doc. 16). 

The Court construes these filings as a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that

follow, the motion is DENIED.

II. Background

The background of the case is set forth in the Court’s summary judgment order

and will not be repeated in detail here. Briefly, plaintiff resides in an apartment in

Ypsilanti Township. His rent is subsidized by virtue of a Housing Choice Voucher

(HCV), formerly known as a Section 8 Voucher. The HCV was issued by the Ann Arbor

Housing Commission. Carter inspected Plaintiff’s apartment on April 7, 2015. Carter

found that electrical outlets in certain areas of the apartment should have GFCI

protection. Thereafter, Carter, on Ann Arbor Housing Commission letterhead, wrote to

Plaintiff's landlord explaining the need for GFCI outlets in the kitchen, bathroom and

laundry areas within 6 feet of a water source. Plaintiff was not required to take any

action based on the letter. Plaintiff's landlord subsequently replaced the electrical

outlets. Plaintiff continues to reside in his apartment.

Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit, claiming violations of the 14th Amendment. He

sought a permanent injunction against future inspections as well as punitive damages in

the amount of $500,000.

III. Legal Standard

E.D. Mich LR 7.1(h)(3) governs motions for reconsideration, providing in relevant

2

2:15-cv-11630-AC-MJH Doc # 17 Filed 12/18/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 178
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 implication. 

The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the

court and the parties have been misled but also show that correcting the

defect will result in a different disposition of the case.

A “palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain. 

Marketing Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 262, 278 (E.D. Mich.

1997)(citing Webster's New World Dictionary 974 (3rd ed. 1988)). A motion for

reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either

expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Czajkowski v. Tindall &

Associates, P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). 

IV. Discussion

Plaintiff has not satisfied this standard. To the extent Plaintiff’s filings can be

intelligently read, he fails to show that the Court erred in dismissing the complaint. The

Court carefully explained why Plaintiff could not prevail on any of his claims. Nothing in

Plaintiff’s filings indicates that his claims should be allowed to proceed.

Plaintiff’s request to “remand” this matter is likewise unavailing. Putting aside

that the case has been dismissed, because Plaintiff clearly invoked the Court’s

jurisdiction by asserting federal claims, there is no basis to remand it back to state court.

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

Dated: December 18, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Detroit, Michigan

3

2:15-cv-11630-AC-MJH Doc # 17 Filed 12/18/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 179