United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Patricia T. Morris, Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM
L. LUDINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Randy Stradley, an inmate representing himself pro se, filed
a complaint on April 29, 2016. ECF No. 1. In the complaint,
he alleges that, while incarcerated at the Kinross
Correctional Facility, he was denied adequate medical care.
Defendant Daniel Heyns, the director of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, was summarily dismissed on August
10, 2016, because Stradley did not allege in his complaint
that Heyns was involved in the allegedly unconstitutional
conduct. ECF No. 6. All pretrial matters were then referred
to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. ECF No. 8. On
September 21, 2016, Defendants Corizon Health Care Provider
and Vindhya Jawardena filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 14.
On November 15, 2016, Judge Morris directed Stradley to file
an amended complaint. ECF No. 22. He filed the amended
complaint on December 9, 2016. ECF No. 24. On February 2,
2017, Judge Morris issued a report recommending that the
motion to dismiss be granted. ECF No. 34.
6, 2017, the Court issued an order overruling Stradley's
objections, adopting the report and recommendation, granting
the motions to dismiss, and dismissing the complaint. ECF No.
64. The Court's dismissal was premised on a finding that
all of Stradley's claims in the complaint were barred by
the three year statute of limitations.
July, Stradley filed four substantially identical motions.
ECF Nos. 66, 67, 69, 70. In each, Stradley requests that the
Court grant relief from the final judgment entered on July 6,
2017, and reopen the case. Stradley also requests leave to
file a second amended complaint. He has filed the proposed
second amended complaint. ECF No. 68. For the following
reasons, Stradley's motions for relief from the final
judgment will be denied.
factual summary provided in the July 6, 2017, opinion and
order will be reproduced in full here. Stradley's claims
arise out of physical injuries he sustained in an altercation
with his cellmate, Michael Jackson, on February 22, 2012. Am.
Compl. at 4. Stradley lost consciousness during the attack
and was transported to the medical department. Id.
After a cursory examination, the nurses released Stradley
despite the extreme pain he was suffering. Id. Later
that day, Stradley was transported to Detroit Medical Center
and received treatment by a Dr. Atas. Dr. Atas observed that
Stradley had sustained significant trauma to his face,
especially his left eye. Id. at 5. Stradley was
placed on medication and “was advised if [at] any point
[he] develops and [sic] newer symptoms, return to the
emergency room.” Id.
February 29, 2012, Stradley's left eye was still swollen
shut as a result of broken facial bones. Id. at 6.
He was still suffering extreme pain. On March 1, 2012, the
prison medical department received discharge paper work from
the Detroit Medical Center which confirmed that Stradley had
suffered several fractures and which recommended
“followup once edema [swelling] subsides.”
March 20, 2012, one prison nurse scheduled Stradley for a
sick call at the Detroit Medical Center because Stradley was
still complaining of broken bones, headaches, and teeth pain.
Id. But Nurse Sekou refused to allow the follow-up
treatment, suggesting that the treatment would be denied due
to costs. Id. at 7. Stradley contends that
Defendants thus ignored clear instructions from the Detroit
Medical Center to “immediately return patient when new
problems occur.” Id. On March 30, 2012,
Stradley was still suffering, but Dr. Jayawardena ignored his
complaints. Id. Similarly, Stradley complained of
pain on the left side of his face and top row of teeth on
August 2, 2012. Rather than transporting him to the Detroit
Medical Center, Dr. Todd gave Stradley a few packets of
2014, the Michigan Department of Corrections finally sent
Stradley to an offsite oral surgeon. On November 11, 2014,
Stradley was diagnosed with “a depressed infra orbital
maxillar fracture which may have caused some impingement on
the infra orbital nerve and/or one of the maxillar branches.
. . . However, at this point, because of the long delay in
healing, a nerve decompression procedure would be
questionable.” Id. at 8-9. (internal citations
omitted). The oral surgeon performed “post-neurectomy
of the inferior orbital canal on the left side of
Plaintiff's face.” Id. at 9. In other
words, one of Stradley's facial nerves was removed.
Currently, Stradley suffers from Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease, which he believes is traceable to the
damage done to his left sinus cavity during the physical
altercation. The damage also interferes with his ability to
talk coherently. Id. at 10. Stradley further alleges
that the “removal of the nerve caused the left side
upper gum to be nub [sic] all the time.” Id.
is suing the Corizon Health Care Provider (which employed the
oral surgeon who removed his nerve in April 2015), Dr.
Jawardena, Dr. Todd, P.A. Campbell, and Nurse Sekou. All of
the individual defendants are affiliated with the Michigan
Department of Corrections. The allegations in Stradley's
amended complaint which name the individual Defendants all
occurred in 2012. Campbell's last alleged interaction
with Stradley took place in February 2012. Id. at 6.
Sekou last interacted with Stradley in March 2012.
Id. at 7. Jayawardena last treated Stradley on March
30, 2012. Id. And Dr. Todd's last examination of
Stradley occurred on August 2, 2012.
is seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). That Rule allows a party to file a “motion to
alter or amend a judgment.” Id. Motions under
Rule 59(e) may be granted “if there is a clear error of
law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in
controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice.”
GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178
F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted).
“Rule 59(e) motions cannot be used to present new
arguments that could have been raised prior to
judgment.” Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d
472, 475 (6th Cir. 2008). If a party is effectively
attempting to “‘re-argue a case' . . . the
district court may well deny the Rule 59(e) motion on that
ground.” Id. (quoting Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374
(6th Cir. 1998)). Likewise, a Rule 59(e) motion is not an
appropriate vehicle to “‘submit evidence which
could have been previously ...