Doe 1-5 v. Whitmer

UEANSITTEEDR SNT DAITSETSR IDCITS TORFI CMTIC CHOIGUARNT SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN DOE 1-5, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 21-11903 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 59 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT’S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF No. 19] John Doe Plaintiffs filed this case alleging the Michigan State Police’s enforcement of unconstitutional provisions of the Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment, and ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. On September 8, 2022, the Court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Rule 59 motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. [ECF No. 19]. Defendants responded, and Plaintiffs filed a reply. The Court “may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend if there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Schlaud v. Snyder, 785 F.3d 1119, 1124 (6th Cir. 2015) (emphasis in original; citation omitted). “A motion under Rule 59(e) is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.” Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs say the Court erred in making the following findings: (1) Defendants Whitmer and Snyder could not be held liable under a theory of supervisory liability; (2) Defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment; and (3) Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. Plaintiffs say these errors were clear, and they warrant modification of the order. The Court disagrees. Much of Plaintiffs’ motion rehashes arguments they already made in response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs fail to show the Court made a clear error of law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. [ECF No. 19]. IT IS ORDERED. s/ Victoria A. Roberts Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge Dated: October 12, 2022