UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Tyreece D. Pitts,

Petitioner, Case No. 21-11558

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Melinda Braman, Mag. Judge David R. Grand Respondent.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT [15] AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS [14]

This matter is before the Court on Michigan prisoner Tyreece D. Pitt’s “request[ ] that this Court alter[ ] or amend a judgment,” which the Court will construe as a motion to alter or amend judgment, and his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) On March 13, 2025, the Court issued an opinion and order denying Petitioner’s

habeas corpus petition, finding that his claims were without merit. (ECF No. 12.) Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, as best the Court can discern, simply restates the arguments in support of his claims without addressing the reasons they were rejected by the Court.

The decision to grant a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 is discretionary with the district court.

Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,

(6th Cir. 2010). “A district court may alter or amend its judgment based on ‘(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.’” Brumley v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,

(6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,

(6th Cir. 2010)). “A Rule 59 motion ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’”

(quoting Exxon Shipping Co.

v. Baker,

, 486 n.5 (2008)). As was the case with Petitioner’s habeas petition, his present motion largely consists of disjointed and inapplicable legal passages

occasionally interspersed with references to the facts of his case. At best, the motion presents a restatement of Petitioner’s habeas claims without 2 presenting any argument as to why the Court’s rejection of those claims involved a clear error of law, that there has been some intervening

change in controlling law, or that a different result is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate

entitlement to an order altering or amending the judgment. To the extent Petitioner is seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis on appeal in the Sixth Circuit (see ECF No. 14), the request is

denied because an appeal would be frivolous and could not be taken in good faith. See

(a)(3). As such, Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend judgment and

request to proceed on appeal in forma paupers (ECF Nos. 14, 15) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2025 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

3 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 October 6, 2025. s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager

4