From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Brink's, Incorporated

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
May 21, 2001
No. 00-73375 (E.D. Mich. May. 21, 2001)

Opinion

No. 00-73375

May 21, 2001


OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S FEBRUARY 26, 2001 MOTION TO WIN JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MARCH 2, 2001 MOTION FOR REVERSED JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MARCH 7, 2001 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MARCH 19, 2001 MOTION TO AMEND; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APRIL 17, 2001 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL; AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MARCH 15, 2001 MOTION TO DISMISS


This matter came before the court on the following motions: plaintiff Sandra Anderson's February 26, 2001 motion to win judgment; Plaintiff's March 2, 2001 motion for reversed judgment; Plaintiff's March 7, 2001 motion for judgment; defendant Brink's March 15, 2001 motion to dismiss; Plaintiff's March 19, 2001 motion to amend; and Plaintiff's April 17, 2001 motion to appoint counsel. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) (E.D. Mich. Sept. 8, 1998), no oral argument was heard.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Plaintiff Sandra Anderson, appearing pro se, filed this complaint July 28, 2000, alleging violations of Title VII and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, sex discrimination by her former employer, defendant Brink's, Inc. Plaintiff also alleges — although it is not clear in what way — that Brink's acted improperly during litigation of her prior suit, case number 96-73207, in which this court entered judgment for Brink's September 8, 1997. In large part, however, it appears that Plaintiff is claiming malpractice by her former attorney, who is not a party to this action.

Plaintiff's current complaint, as it relates to defendant Brink's, is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent this court's ruling that dismissed Plaintiff's previous case. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to collaterally attack and/or relitigate this court's September 8, 1997 order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and its August 14, 2000 order denying Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case.

Plaintiff's current complaint, filed almost three years after her previous complaint was dismissed, includes a new charge of discrimination that she apparently filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on December 10, 1999. Plaintiff's new EEOC charge makes various allegations against defendant Brinks relating to events that allegedly occurred in 1995. The new complaint makes further allegations regarding events between April 14, 1990, and September 5, 1995.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Plaintiff's February 16, 2001 motion states, in its entirety, "I AM REQUESTING A [sic] I WIN JUDGEMENT, BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS DONE WRONG IN CASE 96-73207." Plaintiff's mot. at 1. Under the court's local rules, motions for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days after entry of the judgment or order. L.R. 7.1(g)(1). Pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for relief from judgment or order must be filed within a reasonable time, not to exceed one year. In this case, judgment was entered in Plaintiff's previous suit September 8, 1997. Therefore, the court must deny Plaintiff's February 16, 2001 motion.

Plaintiff's March 2, 2001 motion states, in its entirety, "I AM REQUESTING A REVERSED JUDGEMENT OF CASE NUMBER 96-73207." Plaintiff's mot. at 1. For the reasons stated above, the court must deny Plaintiff's March 2, 2001 motion.

The wording of Plaintiff's March 7, 2001 motion for judgment is identical to that of the February 16, 2001 motion and will be denied for the same reasons.

Plaintiff's March 19, 2001 motion to amend reads, "I AM REQUESTING A COURT ORDER TO AMEND MY COMPLAINT AGAINST BRINK'S. I ASK THAT I MAY, FILE SUIT AGAINST ATTORNEY IRIS RUBIN. IF GRANTED, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WOULD READ." Plaintiff's mot. at 1. Defendant Brink's filed a response to the motion April 17, 2001.

Rule 15 provides that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). However, the liberal amendment provisions of do not require that courts indulge in futile gestures. In cases in which an amended complaint would be subject to dismissal, the court need not grant leave to amend. Sherman Co. v. Salton Maxim Housewares, Inc., 94 F. Supp.2d 817, 829 (E.D. Mich. 2000).

In this case Plaintiff seeks to add three allegations against Brink's. The first two allegations, the use of a policy written in the male gender and a failure to promote Plaintiff based on gender, are duplicative of the allegations in the complaint. Those allegations cannot serve as the basis for an amendment. The third allegation, that Brink's knew that "Iris Rubin was not practing [sic] proper law," also cannot serve as the basis for an amendment because it fails to satisfy the minimum pleading requirements of Rule 8(a). In her motion to amend, Plaintiff also seeks to add Iris Rubin and/or Rubin Rubin as defendants to this action. Plaintiff's motion to join those parties, however, must be denied. The "proper procedure to add parties [is to] request leave of the Court pursuant to Rule 21," not by merely amending the complaint. Keller v.University of Michigan, 411 F. Supp. 1055, 1057 (E.D. Mich. 1974).

Rule 20 "imposes two specific requisites for the joinder of parties: (1) a right to relief must be asserted by, or against, each plaintiff or defendant relating to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, and (2) some question of law or fact common to all parties will arise in the action." League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977). In this case Plaintiff fails to meet these requirements because her claim against Iris Rubin and her law firm does not involve common questions of fact or law to Plaintiff's claims against Brink's. Therefore, the court must deny Plaintiff's March 19, 2001 motion to amend.

Plaintiff's April 17, 2001 motion states, in its entirety, "I AM ASKING THAT THE COURT PLEASE APPOINT LEGAL COUNSEL TO ME." Plaintiff's mot. at 1. Assuming Plaintiff is indigent, and there is no basis for such a finding in this case, "An indigent, whether or not a prisoner, is entitled to counsel only `when, if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical liberty.'" Glover v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1996) (emphasis in original) (quoting Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981)). Plaintiff Anderson has provided no basis for a determination that she is indigent. Furthermore, if she loses, she would not be deprived of her physical liberty. Therefore, the court must deny Plaintiff's April 17, 2001 motion for appointment of counsel.

Defendant Brink's filed a motion to dismiss March 15, 2001. Under the doctrine of res judicata, "a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action."Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979). Res judicata "bars relitigation on every issue actually litigated or which could have been raised" in the prior action. Westwood Chem. Co., Inc. v. Kulick, 656 F.2d 1224, 1227 (6th Cir. 1981).

In this case Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the allegations contained in her current complaint. Her previous case, in which she was represented by counsel, alleged both identical and nearly identical claims against defendant Brink's. Therefore, the court must grant Defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata. In addition, Plaintiff failed to timely file her Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, another basis for dismissal. Moreover, Plaintiff's Elliot-Larsen claim is barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations.

ORDER

For all the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff Sandra Anderson's February 26, 2001 motion to win judgment is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's March 2, 2001 motion for reversed judgment is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's March 7, 2001 motion for judgment is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's March 19, 2001 motion to amend is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's April 17, 2001 motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that defendant Brink's March 15, 2001 motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED in its entirety, and judgment shall be entered forthwith.


Summaries of

Anderson v. Brink's, Incorporated

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
May 21, 2001
No. 00-73375 (E.D. Mich. May. 21, 2001)
Case details for

Anderson v. Brink's, Incorporated

Case Details

Full title:SANDRA ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. BRINK'S, INCORPORATED, Defendant

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

Date published: May 21, 2001

Citations

No. 00-73375 (E.D. Mich. May. 21, 2001)