Opinion
Case Number: 2:13-12544
05-21-2014
GEORGE JURICH, Plaintiff, v. HERMAN C. CAMPBELL, Defendant.
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Michigan state prisoner George Jurich filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendant, Herman C. Campbell, while serving as a Judge for Macomb County District Court, presided over a portion of Plaintiff's state criminal trial proceedings, despite lacking subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint with payment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). After the Court dismissed the complaint, Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this action and a Motion to Reinstate Complaint. The Court granted the motion. The Court then conducted an initial screening of Plaintiff's complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court dismissed the complaint because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under § 1983 for two reasons: (i) the only defendant, the state court judge who handled pretrial matters, is immune from suit; and (ii) the claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Now before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Motions for reconsideration may be granted when the moving party shows (1) a "palpable defect," (2) by which the court and the parties were misled, and (3) the correction of which will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A "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). Petitioner argues that the Court erred in screening the complaint under § 1915A because he sued the defendant state court judge in his personal, rather than official, capacity. Section 1915A requires the Court to review "as soon as practicable . . . a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity." 42 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The provision does not limit screening to matters where a defendant is named in his official rather than personal capacity. Courts routinely screen prisoner civil rights complaints under § 1915A regardless of the capacity in which an official is named. See Taylor v. United States, 161 F. App'x 483 (6th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court's screening under § 1915A where defendants were sued in their official and personal capacities); Polston v. Sapp, No. 99-5512, 2000 WL 876763 (6th Cir. June 23, 2000) (same). Thus, Plaintiff's claim that the Court erred in screening the complaint under § 1915A is meritless.
Plaintiff's remaining arguments for reconsideration amount only to a disagreement with the Court's decision. A motion predicated upon such argument fails to allege sufficient grounds upon which to grant reconsideration. L.R. 7.1(h)(3); see also, Meekison v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio 1998). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the Court's decision was based upon a palpable defect by which the Court was misled.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [dkt. # 9].
ORDERED.
__________
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this document was served on the attorneys of record and George Jurich by electronic means or U.S. Mail on May 21, 2014.
Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk