Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Black

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

June 12, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ROSSAHN BLACK, Defendant.

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan on June 12, 2015

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen Chief Judge, United States District Court

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

GERALD E. ROSEN, Chief District Judge.

In an opinion and order issued on April 17, 2015, the Court ruled on a number of motions filed by Defendant Rossahn Black in advance of his contemplated challenge under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 to his conviction and sentence.[1] Through the present motion filed on May 5, 2015, Defendant seeks reconsideration of one specific aspect of the Court's April 17 ruling, reiterating his argument that the Court should investigate and exercise control over the ongoing practice of a psychologist, Dr. Ron Nieberding, who conducted a pretrial evaluation of Defendant's competency to stand trial.

Under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) of this District, [2] the Court ordinarily "will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court" in its challenged decision. Defendant's present motion runs afoul of this rule, as he concedes that the argument he is now advancing was "clearly stated" in his prior submissions to the Court, and that the Court did, in fact, address this contention in its April 17 decision. ( See Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration at 1.) Defendant's bare disagreement or dissatisfaction with this Court's resolution of this issue does not provide a basis for revisiting the Court's April 17 ruling. See Smith v. Mount Pleasant Public Schools, 298 F.Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (explaining that "[a] motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to rehash old arguments").

For this reason,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's May 5, 2015 motion for reconsideration (docket #149) is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.