UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANDERSON LEE FERNANDERS,

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 15-10083

JEFF WRIGHT, GENESEE COUNTY HON. AVERN COHN

DRAIN COMMISSIONER, DARNEL EARLE,

FLINT’S STATE-APPOINTED EMERGENCY

MANAGER, DAYNE WALLING, MAYOR OF

THE CITY OF FLINT,

and 

MR. and Ms/MRs. JANE AND JOHN DOE/

UNKNOWN (1-100)

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 7)

I.

Plaintiff Anderson Lee Fernanders, proceeding pro se, filed an “Ex Parte

Complaint for Preliminary Injunction and Other Relief” naming “Jeff Wright, Genesee

County, Drain Commissioner, Darnel Earle, Flint’s State-appointed Emergency

Manager, Dayne Walling, Mayor of The City of Flint, and Mr. and Ms./Mrs. Jane and

John Doe/ Unknown (1-100)” as defendants. Plaintiff also sought to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP). The Court granted plaintiff permission to proceed IFP and dismissed

the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. (Doc.

5).

2:15-cv-10083-AC-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 02/26/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 94
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that

follow, the motion is DENIED.

II.

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

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).

III.

In the order of dismissal, the Court explained that the complaint did not state a

plausible basis for jurisdiction. While plaintiff appeared to allege that jurisdiction was

based on a federal question, the complaint referred simply to the “Federal Safe Water

Act.” The Court also noted that to the extent plaintiff may be seeking to pursue a claim

under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”),33 U.S.C. § 1365, and/or the Safe Drinking Water

Act (“SDWA”), 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8, there was no indication he provided the defendants

with adequate notice of the alleged statutory violations. See 40 C.F.R. § 135.3 (notice

under CWA must provide sufficient information to permit recipient to identify violation,

including activity, persons responsible, location and dates); id. § 135.12 (notice

requirement identical under SDWA). Moreover, an individual must provide notice to the

EPA prior to instituting a lawsuit under the CWA or SDWA. See 33 U.S.C. §

1365(b)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. § 300j–8(b)(1)(B). 

2

2:15-cv-10083-AC-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 02/26/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 95
In moving for reconsideration, it appears that plaintiff is asking that the complaint

be considered to provide the required notice to the defendants under federal law. 

Plaintiff cites no authority for this request and the Court is aware of no such authority. 

Rather, plaintiff must follow the statutory and regulatory procedures under the CWA or

the SDWA before filing a lawsuit. In short, plaintiff has not shown that the Court erred in

dismissing the complaint.

SO ORDERED. 

 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 26, 2015

Detroit, MI

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, February 26, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/ Karri Sandusky for Sakne Chami 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

3

2:15-cv-10083-AC-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 02/26/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 96