Pillow v. Burton, 2:19-CV-12432. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20200320882
Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 19, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2020
Summary: ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SEAN F. COX , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion for reconsideration concerning the Court's February 28, 2020 opinion and order dismissing without prejudice his federal habeas petition and denying without prejudice his pending motions. The Court also denied a certificate of appealability. Having reviewed the matter, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its decision. A motion for reconsideration w
Summary: ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SEAN F. COX , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion for reconsideration concerning the Court's February 28, 2020 opinion and order dismissing without prejudice his federal habeas petition and denying without prejudice his pending motions. The Court also denied a certificate of appealability. Having reviewed the matter, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its decision. A motion for reconsideration wh..
More
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
SEAN F. COX, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion for reconsideration concerning the Court's February 28, 2020 opinion and order dismissing without prejudice his federal habeas petition and denying without prejudice his pending motions. The Court also denied a certificate of appealability.
Having reviewed the matter, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its decision. A motion for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F.Supp.2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F.Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Petitioner raises such issues in his motion. The Court notes that it was aware of his pending mandamus action in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit when it issued its decision. That action does not affect the Court's ruling, nor does it require a stay of these proceedings. Petitioner also fails to meet his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. This case remains closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
