United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
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. #
Page Hood, Chief Judge.
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).
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).
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.
The motion for bail is denied as moot.
filed a motion for release on bail.
has now been released on parole and is residing in Benton
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).
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
The Motion to Alter or to Amend Judgment is DENIED.
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.
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).
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.
The motion to extend time to appeal is ...