1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RICKEY BILLS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11414 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

PAUL KLEE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 115) 

Plaintiff Rickey Bills is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan 

Department of Corrections. In this prisoner civil-rights action, Bills alleges that the 

Defendants interfered with his right to access the courts and retaliated against him 

for filing lawsuits. (See Sec. Am. Compl., ECF No. 67.) 

On June 14, 2021, Bills filed a motion in which it appeared that he asked for 

certain records be provided to him. (See Mot., ECF No. 103.) The assigned 

Magistrate Judge did his best to review the motion, and on July 12, 2021, he denied 

it. (See Order, ECF No. 107.) 

Bills then filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his motion. 

(See Obj., ECF No. 111.) The substance of the objection was one sentence: 

 

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 122, PageID.1410 Filed 02/14/22 Page 1 of 4
2 

At no time in this Plaintiff Rickey Bills “motion” that he 

requested for an appointment of an attorney/counsel? In 

(ECF No. 103) Plaintiff Bills did requested for “records” 

...... Which the Magistrate denied. 

(Id., PageID.1156.) 

 The objection did not explain why Bills believed that the Magistrate Judge 

erred. Nor did the objection provide any basis to disturb the Magistrate Judge’s 

resolution of Bills’ motion. The Court overruled the objection on August 3, 2021. 

(See Order, ECF No. 113.) 

 On August 11, 2021, Bills filed what he called an “objection” to the Court’s 

August 3 order. (See ECF No. 115.) The Court construes the “objection” as a motion 

for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling. In that motion, Bills explains that he has 

been unable to access many of his legal documents and unable to obtain the 

assistance of a legal writer because of restrictions put in place due to the COVID-19 

pandemic. (See id.) Bills also says that he is suffering from several significant health 

problems that have prevented him from presenting his case to the Court in the 

manner he would prefer. (See id.) Finally, Bills again asks for the production of 

certain documents, including a transcript of what appears to be an interview he 

participated in with an employee of the Michigan Department of Corrections. (See 

id.) 

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 122, PageID.1411 Filed 02/14/22 Page 2 of 4
3 

 Motions for reconsideration in this Court are governed by Local Rule 7.1(h). 

In relevant part, that rule provides as follows: 

Motions for reconsideration of non-final orders are 

disfavored. They [...] may be brought only upon the 

following grounds: 

(A) The court made a mistake, correcting the mistake 

changes the outcome of the prior decision, and the 

mistake was based on the record and law before the 

court at the time of its prior decision; 

(B) An intervening change in controlling law warrants a 

different outcome; or 

(C) New facts warrant a different outcome and the new 

facts could not have been discovered with reasonable 

diligence before the prior decision. 

E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(2)(A)-(C). A motion for reconsideration is “not an 

opportunity to re-argue a case” and/or “to raise [new] arguments which could, and 

should, have been made” earlier. Sault Ste. Marie v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th 

Cir. 1998). 

 The Court has carefully reviewed Bills’ motion for reconsideration and denies 

it. The Court understands Bills’ frustrations about how restrictions put in place to 

protect inmates from the COVID-19 pandemic have made it more difficult on Bills 

to prosecute this case. The Court also sympathizes with Bills’ health problems. 

However, Bills has not persuaded the Court that it erred when it upheld the 

Magistrate Judge’s denial of his discovery motion. Simply put, Bills has still not 

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 122, PageID.1412 Filed 02/14/22 Page 3 of 4
4 

shown that the records and transcripts that he asks for exist and/or that he could not 

have sought them from the Defendants while discovery was ongoing. Furthermore, 

to the extent that Bills seeks documents from his prior counsel, it appears counsel 

sent Bills those documents in July 2021. (See Ltr. from Counsel, ECF No. 115, 

PageID.1279.) 

 For all of these reasons, Bills’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: February 14, 2022 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on February 14, 2022, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126 

Case 2:15-cv-11414-MFL-DRG ECF No. 122, PageID.1413 Filed 02/14/22 Page 4 of 4