UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THURMAN VAN LILLY, individually,

and as personal representative of the 

Estate of Sadie Mae Lilly,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 09-11900

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

HARPER HOSPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e), filed January 25, 2010. Defendant Harper Hospital submitted a response on February 11,

2010.

Plaintiff Thurman Van Lilly filed a complaint on May 19, 2009, alleging various

violations of federal law and medical malpractice in relation to the death of his mother, Sadie

Mae Lilly. Defendant Harper Hospital filed a motion to dismiss on September 11, 2009, on the

grounds that Plaintiff has no standing to bring this action, among other reasons. Plaintiff did not

respond to the motion to dismiss. On December 3, 2009, Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

issued a report and recommendation advising that Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be

granted because, among other reasons, Plaintiff lacked standing. Specifically, Plaintiff was not

appointed as personal representative of his mother’s estate and, therefore, could not bring suit on

behalf of the estate. Plaintiff did not file objections to the report and recommendation. The

court adopted the report and recommendation on December 30, 2009, and entered judgment for
-2-

Defendant.

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). In general, the court has

discretion to grant relief under Rule 59(e) for the following three reasons: (1) because of an

intervening change in the controlling law; (2) because evidence not previously available has

become available; or (3) relief is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest

injustice. Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement v. Continental Biomass Indus., Inc., 86

F. Supp.2d 721, 726 (E.D. Mich. 2000). Rule 59(e) motions “are not intended as a vehicle to

relitigate previously considered issues; should not be utilized to submit evidence which could

have been previously submitted in the exercise of reasonable diligence; and are not the proper

vehicle to attempt to obtain a reversal of a judgment by offering the same arguments previously

presented.” Id. (citation omitted).

The court may also construe Plaintiff’s motion as arising under Local Rule 7.1(g), which

presents a similar standard. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp.2d 547 (E.D. Mich. 1999).

Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court

will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration which

merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either

expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant shall 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.

LR 7.1(g)(3). 

Plaintiff’s motion does not satisfy either Rule 59(e) or LR 7.1(g). Although Plaintiff

contends that he is eligible to act as personal representative for his mother’s estate, it is

undisputed that he has not been appointed by the Michigan probate court to act in that capacity. 

Therefore, this information does not alter the court’s determination that Plaintiff lacks standing
-3-

to bring this action on behalf of his mother’s estate. 

Plaintiff suggests the court should appoint counsel for him because he is indigent and

incarcerated. Although the court understands the limitations of proceeding pro se, the

appointment of counsel in civil cases is not a constitutional right and is only appropriate in

“exceptional circumstances.” Lavado v. Keohene, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993).

“Appointment of counsel . . . is not appropriate when a pro se litigant’s claims are frivolous, or

when the chances of success are extremely slim.” Id. Given that Plaintiff is not the personal

representative of his mother’s estate, he cannot succeed in bringing this lawsuit and appointment

of counsel is not appropriate.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s January 25, 2010 motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: February 12, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of

record on this date, February 12, 2010, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager