United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION [DKT. NO. 8]; DENYING MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 9], TO SUPPLEMENT [DKT. NO. 10], AND FOR
RELIEF FROM ORDER [DKT. NO. 11]; AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
PAGE HOOD CHIEF JUDGE
Lance Adam Goldman, currently in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, filed a pro se petition
for writ of habeas corpus challenging his extradition to
Florida pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers
(IAD). (Dkt. No. 1, filed May 9, 2019.) This Court dismissed
Goldman's petition on the basis that he had not exhausted
his state court remedies and was thus not entitled to federal
habeas corpus relief. (Dkt. No. 6, filed June 28, 2019.)
Petitioner filed motions for immediate consideration, to
reopen his case, to supplement his petition, and for relief
from the Court's order. Because Petitioner has not
demonstrated his entitlement to relief from judgment, the
case remains closed.
motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion to alter or
amend a judgment and is governed by Rule 59(e). Such relief
is granted only “if the movant demonstrates that the
district court and the parties have been misled by a palpable
defect, and correcting the defect will result in a different
disposition of the case”. Hansmann v. Fid. Invs.
Institutional Servs. Co., 326 F.3d 760, 767 (6th Cir.
2003). “A palpable defect is a defect which is obvious,
clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Fleck v.
Titan Tire Corp., 177 F.Supp.2d 605, 624 (E.D. Mich.
2001) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Rule
7.1(h)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan repeats
Hansmann's standard and adds that “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.”
Rule of Civil Procedure 60 governs motions seeking relief
from judgment, providing in pertinent part that
[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or
its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b); . . .
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs motions to amend
or supplement pleadings. Rule 15 motions “are
frequently filed and, generally speaking, ‘freely'
allowed[, ]” but those filed after a judgment against
the plaintiff are “a different story.”
Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010). As a result,
the Sixth Circuit has established that a district court
“lacks power” to grant a Rule 15 motion unless
post judgment relief, such as that provided by Rules 59 or
60, is granted first. See In re Ferro Corp. Derivative
Litigation, 511 F.3d 611, 624 (6th Cir. 2008) (brackets
omitted) (quoting Acevedo-Villalobos v. Hernandez,
22 F.3d 384, 389 (1st Cir. 1994)); see also Morse v.
McWhorter, 290 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir. 2002).