The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
AHMAD HOSSEINIPOUR, :
:
Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:08-cv-01205
:
v. : Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
:
STATE MEDICAL BOARD OF OHIO, :
et al., :
:
Defendants. :
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Ahmad Hosseinipour’s Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 19), in which he asks this Court to reconsider its decision denying his
request for an attorney and to reopen this case. This case was originally dismissed for failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted on July 17, 2009. (See Order, ECF No. 7). That
decision was then affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Order, ECF No. 11). On
January 19, 2023, nearly 14 years after this case was closed (and during which time this case
remained closed), Plaintiff filed a letter requesting counsel. (See Mot. to Appoint Counsel, ECF
No. 17). That request was denied by this Court. (See Order, ECF No. 18). Hosseinipour now
asks for reconsideration of that decision.
Hosseinipour does not specify a basis upon which he seeks reconsideration. The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for reconsideration, but such
motions are typically construed in the Sixth Circuit as either a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or
amend judgment or as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. Peake v. First Nat’l Bank
& Trust Co. of Marquette, 717 F.2d 1016, 1019 (6th Cir. 1983) (footnotes omitted). A Rule 59
motion must be filed within 28 days of the decision that the movant seeks to alter or amend. As
his request was made within 28 days of this Court’s denial of his motion to appoint counsel, this
Court considers his motion under the Rule 59 standard. See FED R. CIV. P. 59(b). District courts
“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.” Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing
GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999)).
Nothing in Hosseinipour’s motion addresses any of these bases for granting a Rule 59
motion. Instead, he submits three requests. First, he writes that he was discriminated against
when he had his medical license revoked (in the late 1990s), which “destroyed [his] livelihood.”
(See Mot. for Reconsideration at 1, ECF No. 19). But that claim was considered and dismissed
by this Court over ten years ago and Hosseinipour provides no reasons, in the form of new
evidence or an intervening change in controlling law, that compel this Court to reconsider its
previous decision or to reopen the case for further proceedings. Second, Hosseinipour suggests
that his attempts to seek justice in the state court system has been met with rejection at every
turn—he has suffered adverse state court decisions, had his complaints to the Supreme Court of
Ohio go unanswered, and his request for intervention from the state executive rejected. But the
decisions of state courts, the Ohio Supreme Court, and the Ohio governor’s office are not within
the province of this Court’s jurisdiction (except, of course, on habeas). That Hosseinipour has
suffered adverse decisions and has been denied relief by the state courts is undoubtedly a heavy
burden to bear, but not one that this Court can remedy either by appointing him counsel or
reopening his federal case. And third, he asks this Court to send him the Sixth Circuit’s March
2010 decision in this case, so that he may file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court.
But, to seek review from the Supreme Court, a litigant must file a petition for a writ of certiorari
within 90 days from the date of the entry of the final judgment in a federal court of appeals—a
deadline which expired 13 years ago in this case. See SUP. CT. R. 13.1.
In short, Hosseinipour provides no basis in this motion that justifies his request for
reconsideration or for reopening—or for any other form of relief he has requested. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 19).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/ s /_ A__lg_e_n_o_n_ _L_. _M__ar_b_l_e_y_____________
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: August 8, 2023