United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DWANN ARTHUR, as Personal Representative of the Estate of WARREN ANDERSON, Deceased Plaintiff,
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS NATHAN HEPLER, CHARLES HAMILTON, DEREK WRIGHT, HEROLD LEVY, SCOTT ANDREWS and JACOB JOSEPH, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [ECF No. 17]
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dwann Arthur (“Plaintiff”) is personal
representative of the estate of Warren Anderson, deceased
(“Anderson”). Defendants are Michigan Department
of Corrections officers Nathan Hepler, Hamilton, Wright,
Levy, Andrews and Joseph (collectively,
“Defendants”). Plaintiff brings a deliberate
indifference claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a
related state law claim for gross negligence, on behalf of
October 11, 2019, the Court entered an order partially
granting and partially denying Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The Court held that Plaintiff's gross negligence
claims could not proceed.
order sets out the relevant facts and arguments; the Court
does not repeat them here.
moves for reconsideration of the Court's order to dismiss
his gross negligence claim. Plaintiff says the Court made two
palpable errors: (1) the Court stated that Defendants do not
assert governmental immunity, and (2) the Court misread the
holding of Brent v. Wayne County Department of Human
Services, 901 F.3d 656, 701 (6th Cir. 2018), which held
gross negligence claims only require a common-law basis and
not necessarily an independent statutory basis.
claims that correcting these errors will lead to a different
outcome for his gross negligence claim. The Court agrees.
Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for
Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for
reconsideration. The movant must not only demonstrate a
palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been
misled but must also show that a different disposition of the
case must result from correction of the error. A palpable
defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F.Supp.
426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues
already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor
Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F.Supp.2d 628, 632
(E.D. Mich. 2001).
alleges two distinct errors that he says the Court committed:
(1) its statement that Defendants do not assert governmental
immunity and (2) misinterpreting precedent. Plaintiff is
correct. Correction of the first error results in a different
do assert governmental immunity in their Answer. [ECF No. 9,
PageID.47] Such a defense is grounded in the Governmental
Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”). Mich. Comp. Law
§ 691.1407(2)(c). The GTLA provides certain government
officials immunity from tort liability if their conduct does
not amount to gross ...