Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Quatrine v. Berghuis

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

August 30, 2017

CHARLES QUATRINE, Jr., Petitioner,
v.
MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent,

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RELEASE ON BAIL (DKT. # 66), DENYING THE MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (DKT. # 68), AND GRANTING IN PART THE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL [DKT. # 70).

          Denise Page Hood, Chief Judge.

         This Court summarily denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on the ground that the original and amended habeas petitions were barred by the statute of limitations contained within 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). See Quatrine v. Berghuis, No. 2014 WL 793626 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 27, 2014); a'ffd. No. 14-1323, 2016 WL 1457878 (6th Cir. Apr. 12, 2016); cert. den. 137 S.Ct. 664 (2017).

         Petitioner filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment and a motion to disqualify this Court, which were denied. Quatrine v. Berghuis, No. 2:10-CV-11603, 2017 WL 2350060 (E.D. Mich. May 31, 2017).

         Before the Court are petitioner's motion for release on bail, the motion to alter or to amend judgment, and a motion to extend time to file a Notice of Appeal.

         1. The motion for bail is denied as moot.

         Petitioner filed a motion for release on bail.

         Petitioner has now been released on parole and is residing in Benton Harbor, Michigan.[1]

         Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution requires the existence of a case or controversy through all stages of federal judicial proceedings. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975). This means that, throughout the litigation, the petitioner “must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “[M]ootness results when events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief.” Carras v. Williams, 807 F.2d 1286, 1289 (6th Cir. 1986). Because it strikes at the heart of federal court jurisdiction, the mootness of a habeas petition can be raised sua sponte by the federal court, even if the issue is not addressed by the parties. See Brock v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 256 F. App'x 748, 750 (6th Cir. 2007).

         Petitioner's release on parole moots his request to be released on bond. See Morse v. Trippett, 102 F.Supp.2d 392, 413 (E.D. Mich. 2000), vacated on other grds, 37 F.App'x 96 (6th Cir. 2002); See also Morton v. Zych, No. CIV.A. 09-12855, 2010 WL 743042, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 26, 2010); Puertas v. Overton, No. CIV.A. 03-40157, 2008 WL 4239032, at * 2, n. 2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 11, 2008). Petitioner, however, may renew his motion for bond should his parole be revoked. Morse v. Trippett, 102 F.Supp.2d at 413.

         2. The Motion to Alter or to Amend Judgment is DENIED.

         Petitioner filed a motion to alter or amend judgment, asking this Court to reconsider its May 31, 2017 order denying his motion for relief from judgment and his motion to disqualify this Court.

         A motion to alter or amend judgment brought by a habeas petitioner pursuant to Rule 59 (e) should be analyzed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 of the Eastern District of Michigan. Hence v. Smith, 49 F.Supp.2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999). U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration that raises the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Id.;See also Michigan Dept. Of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F.Supp.2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002). The movant not only must show a palpable defect by which the court and the parties were misled but also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F.Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

         In his motion to alter or amend judgment, petitioner offers the same arguments that he made in his earlier motion for relief from judgment and his motion to disqualify. The Court will deny petitioner's motion to alter or amend judgment, because petitioner is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court denied petitioner's earlier motions. Hence v. Smith, 49 F.Supp.2d at 553.

         3. The motion to extend time to appeal is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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