UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HOWARD V. WILLIAMS, ANTONIAL

RANDLE, ROY ROBINSON, DAVID

GREEN, SHAWN MCDEW, and

CHARLES PETTIES, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT and

FCI MILAN,

Defendants.

/

Case Number: 2:09-cv-12707

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on September 16, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Plaintiff Howard Williams, a federal inmate incarcerated at the Federal

Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan (FCI-Milan) filed a pro se civil rights

complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.

Ct. 1999 (1971). The plaintiff was granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the

filing fee in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). After screening the complaint in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court issued an Order of Summary

Dismissal because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

2:09-cv-12707-PJD-VMM Doc # 9 Filed 09/16/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 26
2

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s letter-motion for reconsideration. 

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) provides that a motion for

reconsideration should be granted only if the movant demonstrates that the court and the

parties have been misled by a palpable defect and that a different disposition of the case

must result from correction of that defect. “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is

obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Fleck v. Titan Tire Corp., 177 F. Supp.

2d 605, 624 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Furthermore, “the court will not grant motions for

rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court,

either expressly or by reasonable implication.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3).

In his complaint, Plaintiff Williams alleged that he suffered from health problems,

resulting from asbestos exposure related to his prison job. He named as defendants the

United States of America and FCI-Milan. Because the United States has not waived its

immunity to suit in a Bivens action, Nuclear Transport & Storage, Inc. v. United States,

890 F.2d 1348, 1351-52 (6th Cir. 1989), the Court held the claims against the United

States and FCI-Milan were improper and the complaint subject to summary dismissal. 

Accord Yancey v. Federal Correctional Institute, Nos. 90-5438, 90-5518, 1990 WL

191672, *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 1990) (affirming district court’s dismissal of Bivens claims

against Federal Correctional Institute on ground of sovereign immunity). The Court also

held that the dismissal was without prejudice with respect to the five additional plaintiffs

named by Plaintiff because the purported additional plaintiffs did not sign the complaint

and there was no indication that the additional plaintiffs acceded to the litigation. 

2:09-cv-12707-PJD-VMM Doc # 9 Filed 09/16/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 27
3

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration on the ground that the Court erred in construing his

complaint as attempting to raise the claims of five additional plaintiffs. Plaintiff argues

that he merely intended to alert the Court that additional plaintiffs might be filing similar

claims. Even assuming Plaintiff was not attempting to raise claims on behalf of these

additional plaintiffs, a different disposition of the matter would not result. Plaintiff has

failed to establish the existence of a palpable defect that misled the Court’s prior ruling. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [dkt. #

8] is DENIED. 

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copy To:

Howard Williams

52528060

FCI Milan

Inmate Mail/Parcels

P.O. Box 1000

Milan, MI 48160

2:09-cv-12707-PJD-VMM Doc # 9 Filed 09/16/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 28