Harris Bey v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHANEE’ M. HARRIS BEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 25-cv-10849 v. Honorable Robert J. White T-MOBILE USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS (1) FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND (2) FOR EXPEDITED RELIEF AND A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

Before the Court are pro se Plaintiffs’ motions (1) for leave to amend the complaint and (2) for expedited relief and a temporary injunction. (ECF Nos. 8, 10). For the following reasons, the Court denies both motions. The Court previously granted Plaintiffs’ application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 6). The Court entered a judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ federal statutory claims with prejudice and dismissing the remaining claims without prejudice. (ECF No. 7). “A party seeking leave to amend after an adverse judgment faces a heavier burden than for a . . . leave to amend motion prior to a final ruling.” Mich. Flyer LLC v. Wayne Cnty. Airport Auth., 860 F.3d 425, 431 (6th Cir. 2017). “If a permissive amendment policy applied after adverse judgments, plaintiffs could use the court as a sounding board to discover holes in their arguments, then ‘reopen the case by

amending their complaint to take account of the court’s decision.’” Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 616 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting James v. Watt, 716 F.2d 71, 78 (1st Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, such a motion must satisfy

the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) that there must be “(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.” Mich. Flyer LLC, 860 F.3d at 431. Here, Plaintiffs do not argue that any of these conditions existed, and they

instead merely seek to clarify and “properly articulate the claims of breach of contract, trust interference, and religious burden, with supporting exhibits.” (ECF No. 8). This is insufficient to convince the Court that amendment is warranted. See

Reese v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 17-3380, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16926, *5-6 (6th Cir. Jun. 21, 2018) (concluding that similar justifications did not warrant reversing a district court decision to deny post-judgment leave to amend). Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint is therefore denied, and Plaintiffs’

emergency motion for expedited relief and a temporary injunction is denied as moot. * * * For the reasons given, the Court ORDERS that the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave

to amend the complaint (ECF No. 8) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited relief and a

temporary injunction (ECF No. 12) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may not file an appeal in forma

pauperis because it would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

Dated: May 16, 2025 s/Robert J. White Robert J. White United States District Judge