UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRETT TAYLOR,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-cv-10883

vs. HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

THOMAS COMBS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 59(e) MOTION

This matter is presently before the Court on instructions from the Sixth Circuit Court

of Appeals to construe plaintiff’s April 27, 2015, letter as a timely Rule 59(e) motion to alter or

amend the Court’s judgment. See Docket Entry 12. Plaintiff’s April 27, 2015, letter states in full:

It is kida [sic] hard to do this because I am hevaly [sic] medicated.

Staff asalted [sic] me resently [sic] . . . please help.

Note also sue is on all MDOC Employees. 

I’m sueing [sic] the hole [sic] state their laws are a violation of my

rights . . . All sitasents [sic]. He hit me and I hit the wall.

Combs name removed from claim. I have no name for defendents

[sic], Combs is one of the defendents [sic]. Combs name was the

only one ezaly [sic] avalable [sic]. You must ask for my other

evadince [sic]. You shouldn’t deny my claim without seeing my

other evadince [sic].

Docket Entry 7.

Rule 59(e) motions are entrusted to the Court’s sound discretion. Keweenaw Bay

Indian Community v. United States, 940 F.Supp. 1139, 1140 (W.D. Mich. 1996). “A court may

grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend if there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered

evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” 

Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005). “A Rule 59(e) motion, however, is

2:15-cv-10883-BAF-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 97
not intended as a vehicle to relitigate previously considered issues . . . [and] should not be utilized

to submit evidence which could have been previously submitted in the exercise of reasonable

diligence . . . [and] the ‘proper vehicle for relief is an appeal’ rather than a motion to alter or

amend.” Keweenaw, 940 F.Supp. at 1041. 

The substance of plaintiff’s letter, even when construed liberally, does not satisfy any

of the four standards under which Rule 59(e) motions may be granted. Plaintiff does not argue that

there has been an intervening change in controlling law, nor has he established that the Court has

made a clear error of law. Plaintiff also has failed to show that relief is needed to prevent a manifest

injustice.1

 And although plaintiff asserts that the Court “must ask for [his] other [evidence]” and that

the Court “shouldn’t deny [his] claim without seeing [his] other [evidence],” he has not established

that this evidence was previously undiscoverable at the time he filed his complaint. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion shall be denied.

SO ORDERED.

S/ Bernard A. Friedman_________

 BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 14, 2016

Detroit, Michigan

1

 A “manifest injustice” has been defined as “[a]n error in the trial court that is direct,

obvious, and observable.” Tenn. Protection & Advocacy Inc. v. Wells, 371 F.3d 342, 348 (6th

Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has made no such showing in his letter.

2:15-cv-10883-BAF-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 98