United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND HIS
COMPLAINT OR FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER OF
Corbett O'Meara United States District Judge.
Lavaron Morris, a state prisoner at the Michigan Reformatory
in Ionia, Michigan, has moved to amend his pro se
civil rights complaint or for reconsideration of the
Court's order summarily dismissing the complaint. The
complaint and exhibits alleged that Plaintiff was arrested
without a warrant on December 15, 1988, and then held for
five days before he was given a probable-cause hearing.
Plaintiff claimed that he was interrogated repeatedly by law
enforcement officers from state and federal agencies during
those five days and that he was not permitted to speak with
an attorney. Plaintiff also appeared to allege that he was
deprived of food, a mattress, and access to a bathroom during
his detention. He claimed that the prolonged detention led to
a coerced confession.
August 23, 2016, the Court summarily dismissed the complaint
because Plaintiff was challenging pretrial procedures that
led to his confession and subsequent conviction. The Court
stated that, to the extent Plaintiff was attacking his
conviction and present confinement, his sole remedy was a
habeas corpus petition. The Court added that Plaintiff was
not entitled to money damages or equitable relief unless and
until he could show that his conviction had been invalidated
by state officials or called into question by a federal
court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. As for Plaintiff's challenge to the
living conditions he experienced in jail, the Court
determined that the statute of limitations for those claims
now seeks reconsideration of the Court's ruling and
permission “to fix [his] complaint.” Mot. at 1,
ECF No. 8, Pg ID 59. Plaintiff maintains that his
constitutional rights were violated during his pretrial
detention. He appears to want this Court to issue a
declaratory judgment stating that the City of Detroit has not
complied with a 2003 consent decree in which the City agreed
to improve the conditions of confinement in its jails and to
end its practice of coercing confessions and detaining
suspects for extended periods of time before holding a
probable cause hearing. Plaintiff also seeks to have the
Court appoint a special panel to deal with the City's
practices and policies on arrests, interrogations, and
detention of suspects.
prevail on a motion for reconsideration, “[t]he movant
must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
Court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard
on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting
the defect will result in a different disposition of the
case.” LR 7.1(h)(3) E.D. Mich. July 1, 2013). Plaintiff
has failed to show that the Court's order dismissing his
complaint contains a palpable defect.
Plaintiff's request to fix his complaint, the Court notes
that motions to amend must be freely granted only “when
justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
“[W]here a plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint after
an adverse judgment, he must ‘meet the requirements for
reopening a case established by Rules 59 or 60.' ”
Moncier v. Jones, 557 F. App'x 407, 410 (6th
Cir. 2014) (quoting Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Wildlife
Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 616 (6th Cir. 2010)). A motion for
leave to amend should be denied if the amendment would be
futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
has not filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under
Rule 59(e) or a motion for relief from judgment under Rule
60. And an amendment would be futile because Plaintiff relies
on a class action lawsuit to which he was not a party and a
consent decree allegedly entered by another judge in this
District. He has no standing to seek enforcement of a consent
decree to which he was not a party, Blue Chips Stamps v.
Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 750 (1975), and this
Court has no authority to enforce a consent decree that
remains under the continuing jurisdiction of another district
court, Hirsch v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No.
1:13-cv-01489, 2014 WL 903119, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2014)
(unpublished). District courts only have jurisdiction to
enforce their own consent decrees. See Aro Corp. v.
Allied Witan Co., 531 F.2d 1368, 1371 (6th Cir. 1976)
(stating that “courts retain the inherent power to
enforce agreements entered into in settlement of litigation
pending before them”).
to the extent Plaintiff continues to challenge his arrest and
conviction, his claims are not cognizable in this civil
rights action. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74,
81-82 (2005); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994). As for his complaint about the conditions of
confinement he endured in a Detroit jail prior to his 1988
conviction, the statute of limitations appears to have
expired on those claims.
the reasons given above, the Court denies Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend his complaint or for
reconsideration of the ...