Filed: Mar. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2014
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION SEAN F. COX, District Judge. Motions in civil and criminal cases are governed by Local Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan. Local Rule 7.1 provides that a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order at issue. See Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(1). Here, beginning on March 14, 2014, Defendant Derrick Hills filed several pro se motions (Docket Entry Nos. 75
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION SEAN F. COX, District Judge. Motions in civil and criminal cases are governed by Local Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan. Local Rule 7.1 provides that a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order at issue. See Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(1). Here, beginning on March 14, 2014, Defendant Derrick Hills filed several pro se motions (Docket Entry Nos. 75,..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
SEAN F. COX, District Judge.
Motions in civil and criminal cases are governed by Local Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan. Local Rule 7.1 provides that a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order at issue. See Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(1).
Here, beginning on March 14, 2014, Defendant Derrick Hills filed several pro se motions (Docket Entry Nos. 75, 79, 80 & 82), asking this Court to reconsider the rulings in its January 22, 2014 "Opinion & Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal" (Docket Entry No. 66). Because all of Hills' motions seeking reconsideration were filed more than fourteen days after entry of this Court's January 22, 2014 Opinion & Order, the motions shall be denied as untimely.
In addition, the Court would deny the motions even if they had been timely filed. Local Rule 7.1 states:
(3) Grounds. Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
See Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). Thus, a motion for reconsideration does not afford a movant an opportunity to present the same issues that have been already ruled on by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.
In order to grant a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court has been misled and must also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. Hills has not met that burden.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Hills's motions for reconsideration are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
