1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DOMINICK BOLDEN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-11020

v. HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

ROBERT HOLMES, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT [DKT #8 AND #9]

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration and for leave to file an

amended complaint concerning the Court’s summary dismissal of his civil rights complaint,

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 now seeks reversal of the Court’s decision dismissing his complaint and

wishes to proceed on his complaint, particularly his malicious prosecution claim.

As an initial matter, the Court confirms that it properly dismissed Plaintiff’s 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). 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

2:09-cv-11020-VAR-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 05/11/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 61
2

result from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule 7.1(g)(3). If Plaintiff were to prevail

on his illegal arrest, false testimony, and conspiracy claims (whether considered in the context of

his criminal or parole revocation proceedings), such a determination would call into question the

propriety of his parole revocation and would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his

confinement. Such claims are barred by Heck. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82

(2005); Cochrane v. Wilson, No. 06-12504, 2007 WL 2221389, *3-4 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2007)

(adopting magistrate judge’s report dismissing similar claims); accord Grant v. Hatchett, No.

1:08-CV-73, 2009 WL 467569, *9-10 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 23, 2009). The Court properly dismissed

Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion seeking to amend his civil rights complaint to cure a

perceived defect in his initial pleadings must be denied given the Court’s dismissal of his

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).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for

reconsideration and for leave to file an amended complaint. 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: May 11, 2009

2:09-cv-11020-VAR-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 05/11/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 62
3

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

and Dominick Bolden by electronic means or

U.S. Mail on May 11, 2009.

s/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-11020-VAR-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 05/11/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 63