1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRUNO CHOINIERE, #08346-027,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-10166

v. HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

MANAGED HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS [DKT #12 AND #14]

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for action [Dkt. #12] and his motion for extension

of time [Dkt. #14] concerning the Court’s summary dismissal of his civil rights complaint,

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Court’s subsequent denial of his motion for

reconsideration. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff

is now concerned that the Court did not receive all of the documents pertinent to his complaint

and he essentially seeks reversal of the Court’s decisions dismissing his complaint and denying

reconsideration so that he may proceed on his claims.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that it has received, filed, and considered all of the

documents relevant to this case, including the lengthy attachments filed with Plaintiff’s motion

for reconsideration. There is no indication that prison officials interfered with his legal mail. 

Plaintiff need not file additional copies of his pleadings.

2:09-cv-10166-VAR-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 02/24/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 367
2

Second, the Court confirms that it properly dismissed Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted based upon Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), such that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e). As noted in the Court’s prior order denying reconsideration, a motion for

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

reasonable implication, will not be granted. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D.

Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). 

Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled

or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof, as

required by Local Rule 7.1(g)(3).

Further, even if the Court considers Plaintiff’s motion as one brought pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), he is not entitled to relief. Under that rule, a district court may

grant relief from a final judgment or order only upon a showing of one of the following reasons: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which

by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule

59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or

otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective

application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff has made no such showing. His civil rights complaint was properly

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2:09-cv-10166-VAR-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 02/24/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 368
3

Lastly, to the extent that Plaintiff may be seeking to cure a perceived defect in his initial

pleadings, his motions must be denied given the Court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint. 

The Court may not permit Plaintiff to amend his complaint to defeat summary dismissal. See

Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 488-89 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d

601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997)); see also Clayton v. United States Dep’t. of Justice, et al., 136 Fed.

Appx. 840, 842 (6th Cir. 2005).

For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motions for action and for

extension of time should be denied as he is not entitled to the underlying requested relief. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions [Dkt. #12 and #14] are DENIED. This case is closed. No

further pleadings should be filed in this matter.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: February 24, 2009

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

and Bruno Choiniere by electronic means or U.S.

Mail on February 24, 2009.

s/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-10166-VAR-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 02/24/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 369