Hardy v. Whitaker et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY HARDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WHITAKER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-11270
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF NO. 184)
Plaintiff Gregory Hardy, proceeding pro se, sues law enforcement
officials with the Flint Police Department and the Genessee County Jail
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. The Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). ECF No. 10. This Court recently denied Hardy’s motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint for several reasons, including that
adding the proposed new defendants would lead to misjoinder. ECF No.
179, PageID.1793, 1802-1803. In making that finding, the Court
considered whether a permissive joinder was allowed under Federal Rule
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 189, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 3

2
of Civil Procedures 20(a)(2). 	Id. Hardy now moves for leave to move for
permissive joinder under Rule 20. ECF No. 184. The Court construes this
as a motion for reconsideration of the denial of Hardy’s motion for leave to
file his proposed third amended complaint.
“Courts will generally entertain a motion for reconsideration only
when there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, when
new evidence has become available, or when there is a need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” 	Carter v. Robinson, 211 F.R.D.
549, 550 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (cleaned up). Hardy has failed to show that
reconsideration is warranted under that standard. The Court thus DENIES
Hardy’s motion for leave to file a motion for permissive joinder. ECF No.
184.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
Dated: October 30, 2025 	United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 189, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 3

3
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	“When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” 	E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on October 30, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 189, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 3