JaJuan Anthony Brown v. Department of Defense.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: June 26, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-12638
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JaJuan Anthony Brown,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-12638 Hon. Jonathan J.C. Grey v.

Department of Defense.,

Defendant. ______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF OF JUDGMENT (ECF No. 16)

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff JaJuan Anthony Brown’s motion for relief of judgment from the Court’s previous order denying his motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 16.) For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Brown’s motion. I. BACKGROUND On October 7, 2024, Brown filed a complaint alleging civil rights violations and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1– 2.) On April 1, 2025, the Court granted Brown’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and summarily dismissed the complaint as frivolous. (ECF No. 8.) On May 22, 2025, Brown filed a motion to amend his complaint, which consisted of one paragraph asking, “to amend [his] complaint for a

better complaint with more evidence.” (ECF No. 10, PageID.26.) The Court denied his request, specifically noting Brown’s failure to attach a proposed amended complaint to his motion. (ECF No. 12.) Then, on

October 14, 2025, Brown filed a motion for reconsideration in which Brown “urge[d] the Court to [a]llow [his] new evidence and claims to be

used,” but he again failed to include a proposed amended complaint. (ECF No. 13, PageID.31.) Finding no legal basis for reconsideration, the Court denied Brown’s motion and entered a judgment closing the case. (ECF

Nos. 14–15.) On January 27, 2026, Brown filed a “motion for relief of judgement,” asking “the Court to allow [him] to proceed with [his] motion [to amend],” (ECF No. 16, PageID.44), as well as an amended complaint

(ECF No. 17). II. LEGAL STANDARD “District courts review motions to reconsider under the same

standard as motions to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) or motions for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” United States v. Shields, No. CR 2: 09-33-DCR-04, 2016 WL 3212250, at *1 (E.D. Ky. June 7, 2016) (citing Huff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir. 1982); Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341,

347 (5th Cir. 1991)). Local Rule 7.1(h)(4) states, “[a] motion to reconsider an order denying a motion for reconsideration may not be filed.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(4). Accordingly, the “Local Rules do not provide that a

party is allowed to file multiple motions for reconsideration of an order.” United States v. Rodgers, No. 10-20235, 2011 WL 2746196, at *1 (E.D.

Mich. July 14, 2011). See Annabel v. Campbell, No. 20-CV-11114, 2023 WL 2762017, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2023); Meeks v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:19-cv-12506, 2020 WL 6161263, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21,

2020) (citing Hawkins v. Czarnecki, 21 F. App’x 319, 320 (6th Cir. 2001)) (“A litigant is not entitled to file multiple subsequent motions for reconsideration once a district court has issued an order denying the

initial motion for reconsideration.”). III. ANALYSIS Brown’s motion does not specify the provision under which he seeks

relief from the Court’s prior order denying his initial motion for reconsideration. Regardless, “district courts review motions to reconsider under the same standard as motions to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) or motions for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)[.]” Shields, 2016 WL 3212250, at *1. Because Brown’s motion asks the Court for the same

relief requested in his initial motion for reconsideration, the Court interprets Browns’ motion as a subsequent motion for reconsideration, which the Court does not have the authority to consider. E.D. Mich. LR

7.1(h)(4). Therefore, the Court DENIES Brown’s motion. IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Brown’s motion for relief of judgment (ECF No. 16) is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

s/Jonathan J.C. Grey Hon. Jonathan J.C. Grey Date: June 26, 2026 United States District Judge Certificate of Service The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First-Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 26, 2026.

s/ S. Osorio Sandra Osorio Case Manager