Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Staples v. Stone

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

May 18, 2017

William Staples, Plaintiff,
v.
Stone, et al., Defendants.

          Stephanie Dawkins Davis United States Magistrate Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [9], DIRECTING SERVICE WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF COSTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL TO COLLECT COSTS AFTER SERVICE IS MADE

          Hon. Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge

         I. Introduction

         In June 2016, Plaintiff William Staples filed a pro se civil rights complaint. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff is a federal prisoner currently confined at the United States Federal Correctional Institution in Estill, South Carolina. Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff's brought his complaint against seven defendants, pleading a variety of claims stemming from different instances of alleged mistreatment while incarcerated. See Dkt. No. 1. After reviewing Plaintiff's complaint, the Court dismissed improperly joined claims and defendants, and ordered Plaintiff to provide materials needed to properly serve remaining defendants. Dkt. Nos. 5, 8.

         Plaintiff submitted extra copies of the complaint, but also filed an objection to the Court's order. While objections are properly filed to dispute the findings of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the correct means by which to dispute a district court judge's order is a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court will interpret Plaintiff's objection [9] as moving the Court to reconsider its prior ruling.

         For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion [9].

         II. Legal Standard

         “A motion for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1).[1] Under this Court's Local Rules, the Court may not grant a motion for reconsideration that merely presents the same issues upon which the Court already ruled. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Additionally, the movant must demonstrate that there is a palpable defect in the opinion or order under attack and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. Id.; Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011). “A ‘palpable defect' is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys Health Systems, 704 F.Supp.2d 688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F.Supp.2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001)).

         III. Discussion

         A. Failure to State a Claim

         Plaintiff first objects that the Court should not dismissed some of his claims prior to summary judgment. Dkt. No. 9, p. 2 (Pg. ID 55). However, contrary to Plaintiff's argument, the Court did not dismiss his claim based on facts. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claim alleging his rights were violated by having to pay a $2.00 co-pay for each medical visit because the Sixth Circuit has already determined that a claim cannot result from his action. See White v. Corr. Med. Servs. Inc., 94 F. App'x 262, 264 (6th Cir. 2004) (“It is constitutional to charge inmates a small fee for health care where indigent inmates are guaranteed service regardless of ability to pay.”). Even assuming all of Plaintiff's alleged facts to be true, this claim cannot legally rise to the level of a constitutional violation and was properly dismissed with prejudice.

         Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion as to this point.

         B. Dismissal of Defendant United States

         Second, Plaintiff objects to the Court's dismissal of Defendant United States on the ground of sovereign immunity, arguing that he may pursue the United States as a defendant under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.