Opinion
Case No. 4:06-CV-12454.
July 17, 2006
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend Complaint and Judgment." The Court dismissed Plaintiff's pro se civil rights complaint without prejudice for failure to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiff now seeks to cure such defects in his complaint.
The Court, however, may not permit Plaintiff to amend his complaint to comply with the exhaustion requirement and defeat dismissal under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 488-89 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997)); see also Moniz v. Hines, 2004 WL 259214, at *4 (6th Cir. Feb. 10, 2004) (unpublished). Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of his action, he is not entitled to relief. A motion for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by the district court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall Assoc., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule 7.1(g)(3). Furthermore, because the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, there is no manifest injustice in denying the motion to amend. Plaintiff retains the opportunity to file a properly pleaded complaint.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to amend [docket entry 5] is DENIED.