Filed: Jun. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 09, 2016
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DKT. # 24], DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ON THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS GEORGE CARAM STEEH , District Judge . On May 18, 2016, the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus that had been filed by petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Gardner v. Berghuis, N
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DKT. # 24], DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ON THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS GEORGE CARAM STEEH , District Judge . On May 18, 2016, the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus that had been filed by petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Gardner v. Berghuis, No..
More
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DKT. # 24], DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ON THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
GEORGE CARAM STEEH, District Judge.
On May 18, 2016, the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus that had been filed by petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Gardner v. Berghuis, No. 2:12-CV-14138, 2016 WL 2894490 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2016).
Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h) governs motions for reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F.Supp.2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). A motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant demonstrates a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that correcting the defect will lead to a different disposition of the case. See DirecTV, Inc. v. Karpinsky, 274 F.Supp.2d 918, 921 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration will be denied, because 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).
A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a motion for reconsideration in a habeas case. See e.g. Amr v. U.S., 280 Fed. Appx. 480, 486 (6th Cir. 2008). This Court will deny petitioner a certificate of appealability, because jurists of reason would not find this Court's resolution of petitioner's motion for reconsideration to be debatable. The Court will deny petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis because any appeal would be frivolous. Hence, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 549.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 24] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability regarding the motion for reconsideration and leave to appeal in forma pauperis are DENIED.
