OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PAUL D. BORMAN, District Judge.

On October 19, 2015, this Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus that had been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court also denied petitioner a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Smith v. Haas, No. 2:14-CV-11540, 2015 WL 5697634 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2015).

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. In order for a court to grant a motion for reconsideration, the movant must show (1) a palpable defect; (2) that misled the court and the parties; and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. Sigma Financial Corp. v. American Intern. Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 200 F.Supp.2d 710, 715 (E.D. Mich. 2002). A `palpable defect' is a defect which is considered "obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain." Id. As a general rule, a court will not grant a motion for rehearing or reconsideration that merely presents the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. Id.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration will be denied. Petitioner is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court denied petitioner's habeas application and declined to issue a certificate of appealability or leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F.Supp.2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 18] is DENIED. SO ORDERED.