UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALLEN DANIEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLAINE LAFLER, ET AL.,

Defendants. 

 /

Case No. 2:08-CV-13817

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND

Plaintiff Allen Daniel has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Baraga Maximum

Correctional Facility in Baraga, Michigan, is proceeding without prepayment of the filing

fee in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Now before the court is Plaintiff’s

“Motion to Amend and Alter Judgment to Dismiss Docket # 8, and Order Docket # 10 be

Dismissed without Prejudice, and[/]or Held in Abeyance,” filed December 4, 2008. For

the reasons stated below, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he has been the victim of retaliation by

various state officials and Michigan Department of Corrections’ employees. Plaintiff

claims that the retaliatory acts are motivated by several lawsuits he has filed against

Governor Jennifer Granholm, Attorney General Mike Cox, Macomb and Wayne County

Prosecutors, and court officers. Plaintiff claims that he was verbally threatened,

deprived of food for forty-four days, served food contaminated by chemicals, doused in

2:08-cv-13817-RHC-PJK Doc # 32 Filed 01/09/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 313
1 Plaintiff also requests that the court expedite U.S. Marshal Service in his case. 

(Pl.’s Mot. at 2.) The court notes that the U.S. Marshal acknowledged receipt of

Plaintiff’s service of process documents on December 12, 2008 [Dkt. # 19], and that the

U.S. Marshal will effect service of process in due course. 

2

 Plaintiff also requests “full Brady and Franks Hearing.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 5.) A court

conducts these hearings, however, at criminal proceedings to determine whether the

prosecutor possesses any Brady material, Storer Communications, Inc., et al. v.

Presser, 828 F.2d 330, 338 (6th Cir. 1987), and to determine whether an affiant to a

search warrant made statements in support of probable cause intentionally untruthfully

or with the a reckless disregard for the truth, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155

(1978). Neither is applicable in Plaintiff’s case.

2

chemicals thrown on him by other inmates at the urging of corrections officers, deprived

of his legal documents, and issued false misconduct tickets. 

On September 25, 2008, this court issued an order of partial dismissal of

Defendants in Plaintiff’s case. The September 25, 2008 order further required that

Plaintiff serve the remaining thirteen Defendants with copies of his complaint. On

November 21, 2008, this court issued another order in Plaintiff’s case, denying Plaintiff’s

motion to amend his complaint and striking Plaintiff’s improper correspondence with the

court. 

Now Plaintiff requests the court to “alter or amend dockets # 8 [September 25,

2008 order], # 10 [Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint], and # 14 [Plaintiff’s “Affidavit”]

to be dismissed without prejudice in the order issued on 11/21/08.”1

 (Pl.’s Mot. at 2.) 

Because Plaintiff seeks to change the outcome of the court’s September 25, 2008 and

November 21, 2008 orders, the court construes Plaintiff’s instant motion as a motion for

reconsideration.2

2:08-cv-13817-RHC-PJK Doc # 32 Filed 01/09/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 314
3

II. DISCUSSION

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(g) provides that a motion for

reconsideration shall be granted only if the movant can (1) “demonstrate a palpable

defect by which the court and the parties have been misled,” and (2) show that

“correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. LR

7.1(g)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is ‘a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest,

or plain.’” United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (citing

United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D. Mich. 2001)). A motion for

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

expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3);

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

Plaintiff, however, fails to satisfy this standard. Plaintiff merely requests the

stated relief and asks the court to alter its previous opinions. He makes no attempt to

argue that a “palpable defect” has “misled” the court. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3). Neither

does he demonstrate why the corrections he seeks would “result in a different

disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3). He only alleges that Defendants kept

him from the correctional facility law library and removed legal documents from his

person without explaining to the court how or why this should lead to a different

disposition of the court’s prior opinions. (Pl.’s Mot. at 2.) Therefore, the court will deny

Plaintiff’s motion because he has not shown a “palpable defect by which the court and

the parties have been misled,” the correcting of which would “result in a different

disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3). 

IV. CONCLUSION

2:08-cv-13817-RHC-PJK Doc # 32 Filed 01/09/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 315
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-13817.DANIEL.Dismiss.Motion.to.Alter.Previous.Orders.ljd.wpd

4

For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend,

which the court has construed as a motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 16], is DENIED.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 9, 2009

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

on this date, January 9, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522 

2:08-cv-13817-RHC-PJK Doc # 32 Filed 01/09/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 316