United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
WILLIAM A. MERRIWEATHER, Petitioner,
BONITA J. HOFFNER, Warden, Respondent.
PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen United States District
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER'S MOTION
TO STAY RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
E. Rosen, United States District Judge
March 29, 2016, Petitioner Merriweather filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's denial of his
earlier-filed Nunc Pro Tunc Application for an Order
directing that the Court's denial of Petitioner's
January 25, 2001 Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing be
explicitly set forth in a docket entry. That same date, March
29, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion asking that the Court
hold ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration in abeyance
pending his pursuit of an appeal of any denial of his
contemporaneously-filed Motion for Recusal to the Chief
decisions of District Judges, however, may not be appealed to
the Chief Judge of the District Court; appeal may only be
taken before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore,
Petitioner Merriweather's Motion to hold decision on
Motion for Reconsideration in Abeyance [Dkt. # 112] is DENIED
requirements for the granting of motions for reconsideration
are set forth in Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule
7.1(h), which, in relevant part, provides:
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.
in order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the
movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which
the Court has been misled, he must also show that a different
disposition of the case must result from a correction of that
defect. A “palpable defect” is “a defect
that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or
plain.” United States v. Lockette, 328
F.Supp.2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Moreover, a motion that
merely presents the same issues already ruled upon by the
Court -- either expressly or by reasonable implication --
will not be granted. L.R. 7.1(h)(3); see also Flanagan v.
Shamo, 111 F.Supp.2d 892, 894 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
Civ. P. 59(e) also may be used as a vehicle for seeking
reconsideration of a court's prior ruling. Generally,
there are three situations which justify reconsideration
under Rule 59(e): (1) to correct a clear error of law; (2) to
account for newly discovered evidence; (3) to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law; or (4) to prevent
manifest injustice. Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428
F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005); see also GenCorp, Inc. v.
Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.
1999). However, like the Local Rule, motions under Rule 59(e)
“are not intended as a vehicle to relitigate previously
considered issues; should not be utilized to submit evidence
which could have been previously submitted in the exercise of
reasonable diligence; and are not the proper vehicle to
attempt to obtain a reversal of a judgment by offering the
same arguments previously presented.” Kenneth Henes
Special Projects Procurement v. Continental Biomass
Industries, Inc., 86 F.Supp.2d 721, 726 (E.D. Mich.
2000). “A motion to alter or reconsider a judgment is
an extraordinary remedy and should be granted
sparingly.” Plaskon Elec. Materials, Inc. v.
Allied-Signal, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 644, 669 (N.D. Ohio
1995); United States v. Limited, Inc., 179 F.R.D.
541, 547 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (citing Sussman v. Salem, Saxon
& Nielsen, P.A ., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla.
1994), Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Trabosh,
812 F.Supp. 522, 524 (E.D. Pa.1992)).
application of the foregoing authorities, the Court will deny
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's
motion merely presents the same issues already ruled upon by
the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has not shown a “palpable
defect” by which the Court has been misled.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration [Dkt. # 111] is DENIED.
Petitioner may appeal from this Order, a certificate of
appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of
appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the
required showing, the movant must show that reasonable
jurists could debate whether the matter could have been
resolved differently or whether the claims raised deserved
further review. Johnson v. Bell, 605 F.3d 333, 339
(6th Cir. 2010). The court concludes that jurists of reason
would not find the Court's denial of Merriweather's
Motion for Recusal debatable. The Court also will also deny