Simmons v. Henry Ford Health System ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LATAUSHA SIMMONS, Plaintiff, Case No. 18-cv-14058 v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendant. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE (ECF No. 109) In this action, pro se Plaintiff LaTausha Simmons alleged that she was assaulted at Henry Ford Hospital, and she brought claims against Defendants Henry Ford Health System (“HFHS”), Henry Ford Hospital, and several unidentified individuals employed by HFHS arising out of that alleged assault. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) In the course of pursuing her many claims, Simmons frequently violated court orders and the governing rules of procedure. As the Court previously explained in detail, Simmons “repeatedly and consistently failed to comply with governing rules and court orders.”1 (Order, ECF No. 101, PageID.1229-1233.) 1 Simmons is a frequent filer in this Court, and several Judges on this Court have reprimanded her for similar behavior in those cases. See, e.g., Simmons v. City of Detroit, Case No. 19-cv-11595, 2020 WL 4903785, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2020) (concluding that Simmons had not “act[ed] in good faith”); Simmons v. City of Detroit, et al., Case No. 23-cv-10087, 2023 WL 373610, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2023) (dismissing Complaint Simmons had filed and noting that “most of the Thus, due to Simmons’ “unbroken pattern of violating rules and orders,” the Court dismissed her Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Id., PageID.1238.) On December 7, 2023, Simmons filed a motion for relief from judgment in which she asked the Court to reconsider its dismissal of her case. (See Mot., ECF No. 105.) The Court denied that motion on December 21, 2023. (See Order, ECF No. 106.) Simmons has now returned to this Court and filed a motion to reinstate her case. (See Mot., ECF No. 109.) The Court has carefully reviewed Simmons’ motion and remains persuaded that dismissal of her Complaint due to her vexatious conduct was appropriate. Simmons’ motion is therefore DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN Dated: November 7, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on November 7, 2024, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126 claims” were “frivolous”); Simmons v. City of Detroit, et al., Case No. 20-11650, 2020 WL 3791528, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2020) (noting Simmons’ history of “repetitive or vexatious litigation” and imposing a permanent injunction “requiring Simmons to seek leave of court before filing” any additional civil actions concerning a particular subject matter).