United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
DENISE PAGE HOOD JUDGE
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.
Standard of Review
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
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)).
Deliberate Indifference Analysis
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.
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)
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 ...