Lee v. Horton, 18-cv-10991. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20191223c48
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 16) PAUL D. BORMAN , District Judge . I. This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The case was recently reopened upon Petitioner's exhaustion of administrative remedies. (ECF No. 15). In the order reopening the case, the Court denied Petitioner's request for expedited review, finding that the case should proceed in the normal course, including requiring a response to the petition. See id. Before the Court is Petitioner's
Summary: ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 16) PAUL D. BORMAN , District Judge . I. This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The case was recently reopened upon Petitioner's exhaustion of administrative remedies. (ECF No. 15). In the order reopening the case, the Court denied Petitioner's request for expedited review, finding that the case should proceed in the normal course, including requiring a response to the petition. See id. Before the Court is Petitioner's ..
More
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 16)
PAUL D. BORMAN, District Judge.
I.
This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was recently reopened upon Petitioner's exhaustion of administrative remedies. (ECF No. 15). In the order reopening the case, the Court denied Petitioner's request for expedited review, finding that the case should proceed in the normal course, including requiring a response to the petition. See id.
Before the Court is Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of expedited review. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
II.
Petitioner expresses concern that the Court did not apprehend the strength of his claims, justifying immediate relief. The Court has already explained, however, that expedited review is not necessary in part because in addition to the convictions challenged in the current case, Petitioner is also serving long sentences for two murder convictions that are being challenged in a separate habeas proceeding. Nothing in Petitioner's motion convinces the Court that it erred in denying expedited review.
Accordingly, the Court has not been misled by any palpable defect justifying a different disposition of Petitioner's motions for more a speedier resolution of his petition. Reconsideration is not warranted. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
Petitioner's motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
