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.

Hagerman v. County of Macomb

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

June 21, 2017

DEBORAH HAGERMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
MACOMB, COUNTY OF, ANTHONY M. WICKERSHAM, AMY FRANKS, BRIAN PINGILLEY, STEVEN MARSCHKE, KEITH PETHKE, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [#50]

          HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD JUDGE

         I. BACKGROUND

         This matter is now before the Court on individual Defendants Deputies Steven Marschke (“Marschke”), Keith Pethke (“Pethke”), Brian Pingilley (“Pingilley”), and Amy Franks' (“Franks”) Motion for Reconsideration filed on April 12, 2017. (Doc # 50) On March 29, 2017, the Court entered an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Dismissal. (Doc # 48) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration.

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Standard of Review

         The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). No response to the motion and no oral argument thereon are permitted unless the Court orders otherwise. Id. at 7.1(h)(2). Defendants' Motion is timely filed.

         Local Rule 7.1 further states:

(3) Grounds. Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, 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. The 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.

Id. at 7.1(h)(3). “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). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration”) (citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992)).

         B. Palpable Defect

         1. Deliberate Indifference Analysis

         Defendants argue that the Court made a palpable error in its March 29, 2017 Order because the Court failed to apply both the objective and subjective prongs of the deliberate indifference analysis to each individual Defendant. Defendants again argue that, at worst, the conduct of each individual Defendant was negligent.

         The Court finds that Defendants have not met their burden on a motion for reconsideration, as they have not demonstrated a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled. The Court did apply both the objective and subjective prongs of the deliberate indifference analysis to each Defendant. (Doc # 48, Pg ID 1032-44)

         Through the instant Motion, Defendants merely re-hash the same arguments they have made before. Defendants argue again that Marschke and Pethke could not have formulated the subjective deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm with respect to Ryan Hagerman because they had nothing to do with Mark Cowans' (“Cowans”) placement in the high-observation suicide-watch cell with Ryan Hagerman. Defendants argue again that Marschke and Pethke had no opportunity or means to prevent the harm that occurred because any housing decisions they made or could have made with respect to Cowans would have been “vetoed” once the mental health unit assessed Cowans and made a housing determination. Defendants argue again that Pingilley and Franks had no reason to know of Cowans' propensities and were not given a reasonable opportunity to act or react in order to be found to have consciously disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old arguments. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, 146 F.3d at 374. The Court already considered ...


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.