Opinion
Civil Action 21-CV-11182
07-22-2021
JOSEF CADWELL, #339620, Plaintiff, v. BRODERICK FLESCHER, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN, J.
This matter is presently before the Court on plaintiff's motions for reconsideration, for leave to amend the complaint, and for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 6, 7, and 8). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2) and 7.1(h)(2), the Court shall decide these motions without a hearing.
The motion for reconsideration is denied because plaintiff has shown no error in the Court's opinion and order dismissing his complaint for failing to state an Eighth Amendment claim. See Cadwell v. Flescher, No. 21-CV-11182, 2021 WL 2682718, at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2021). The motion for leave to amend is denied because plaintiff has not met “the requirements for reopening a case established by Rules 59 or 60, ” Pond v. Haas, 674 Fed.Appx. 466, 472 (6th Cir. 2016), he has failed to offer “a compelling explanation for failing to seek leave to amend prior to the entry of judgment, ” id. at 473 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and he has failed to explain how, precisely, he proposes to amend his complaint. Finally, plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied because no appeal in this matter could be “taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
SO ORDERED.