United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT [#20]
Page Hood Chief Judge, United States District Court.
December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Brian Palmer filed a three-count
Complaint against Defendants Bill Schuette
(“Schuette”) and Scott Teter
(“Teter”). On September 27, 2016, the Court
entered an Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
[Dkt. No. 18] On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Combined
Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Amend the Complaint
(“Combined Motion”) [Dkt. No. 20], to which
Defendants filed a response and Plaintiff filed a reply. The
Court, having concluded that the decision process would not
be significantly aided by oral argument, previously ordered
that the motion be resolved on the motion and briefs
submitted by the parties. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2). [Dkt.
No. 22] For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the
relevant facts regarding this matter were set forth in the
Court's September 27, 2016 Order and, rather than restate
them here, the Court incorporates them by reference in this
Order. The following facts are relevant to the Combined
is a former Michigan state representative who was charged in
a misdemeanor complaint with, and entered a no-contest plea
in the 54A District Court to, one count of willful neglect of
duty under M.C.L. § 750.478. M.C.L. § 750.478
When any duty is or shall be enjoined by law upon any public
officer, or upon any person holding any public trust or
employment, every willful neglect to perform such duty, where
no special provision shall have been made for the punishment
of such delinquency, constitutes a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more
than $1, 000.00.
to and at the time Plaintiff entered his no-contest plea, he
“was self-employed as a partner and the president of
his own venture capital company.”
is an assistant attorney general in the office of the
Michigan Attorney General who prosecuted Plaintiff. Schuette
is the Attorney General for the State of Michigan, and he
authorized the charge against Plaintiff.
December 20, 2013, the same day that Plaintiff entered his
no-contest plea and was sentenced, Schuette issued, and Teter
contributed to, a press release on the Michigan Attorney
General website regarding Plaintiff's conviction. The
press release was titled “Schuette Announces Conviction
of Former Macomb State Representative for Role in Ponzi
Scheme.” The press release stated, in part, that
Plaintiff “assisted two other men to operate a $9
million Ponzi scheme that defrauded more than 150 persons
between 2006 and 2012” and “used his position as
an elected official to assist” others in operating a
fraudulent investment company. [Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶
Complaint alleged that Defendants, acting in their individual
capacities: (1) violated Plaintiff's due process rights
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (Count I); (2)
violated Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free
from prosecution without probable cause (Count Two); and (3)
defamed Plaintiff under the laws of the State of Michigan
(Count Three). Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
challenges the Court's dismissal of Counts I and Count
III but not the dismissal of Count II.
APPLICABLE LAW & ANALYSIS
order to obtain reconsideration of a particular matter, the
party bringing the motion for reconsideration must: (1)
demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the
parties have been misled; and (2) demonstrate that
“correcting the defect will result in a different
disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
See also Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. County of
Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir. 2004); Aetna
Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Dow Chemical Co., 44 F.Supp.2d 865,
866 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Kirkpatrick v. General
Electric, 969 F.Supp. 457, 459 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
“palpable defect” is a “defect which is
obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.”
Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F.Supp.2d 872, 874
(E.D. Mich. 2004). The movant must also demonstrate that the
disposition of the case would be different if the palpable
defect were cured. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Brown v.
Walgreens Income Protective Plan for Store Managers, No.
10-CV-14442, 2013 WL 1040530, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 15,
2013). “[T]he court will not grant motions for
rehearing or ...