United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING
FEES AND COSTS ON APPEAL [#92], DENYING THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [#94], AND ENJOINING PETITIONER FROM FILING
FURTHER MOTIONS OR PLEADINGS WITHOUT LEAVE FROM THE
Gershwin A. Drain, United States District Court Judge.
Douglas Jackson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This Court
held the petition in abeyance and administratively closed the
case to permit Petitioner to complete state post-conviction
proceedings in the state courts where he had attempted to
exhaust additional claims. Jackson v. Parish, No.
15-CV-11622, 2019 WL 4573799 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 20, 2019).
This Court subsequently denied Petitioner's motion for
production of the transcripts. ECF No. 90.
filed a notice of appeal from the Court's order holding
the petition in abeyance. ECF No. 91. Petitioner has also
filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and
costs on appeal, as well as a motion for reconsideration of
the Court's order denying the motion for transcripts. ECF
Nos. 92, 94. For the reasons that follow, the motions are
DENIED. The Court further ENJOINS Petitioner from filing any
further motions or pleadings in this case without leave from
requested permission to proceed without prepayment of fees
and costs on the appeal of this Court's orders on
September 20 and November 5, 2019. ECF No. 92. The Court is
holding his petition in abeyance while Petitioner's
post-conviction motion is adjudicated anew after the case was
remanded back to the trial court by the Michigan Supreme
standard for granting an application for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis is a lower standard than the
standard for certificates of appealability. See Foster v.
Ludwick, 208 F.Supp.2d 750, 764 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
Whereas a certificate of appealability may only be granted if
a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, a court may grant leave to proceed
in forma pauperis if it finds that an appeal is
being taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a); Foster, 208 F.Supp.2d at 764-65.
“Good faith” requires a showing that the issues
raised are not frivolous; it does not require a showing of
probable success on the merits. Id. at 765.
although there is a decidedly lower standard, Petitioner is
denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
because the Court finds that the appeal is not taken in good
faith and would therefore be frivolous.
also filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court's
order denying his motion for the transcripts.
Rule 7.1 allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration.
E.D. Mich. L.R. § 7.1(g). However, a motion for
reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication, will not be granted. Whitehouse Condo. Grp.,
LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 959 F.Supp.2d 1024, 1031
(E.D. Mich. 2013). A motion for reconsideration should be
granted if the movant demonstrates a palpable defect by which
the court and the parties have been misled and that a
different disposition of the case must result from a
correction thereof. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v.
Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 79 F.Supp.2d 768, 797 (E.D.
motion for reconsideration will be denied, as he is merely
presenting issues that were already ruled upon by this Court,
either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court
denied the motion for transcripts. Whitehouse Condo.
Grp., LLC, 959 F.Supp.2d at 1031.
the Court notes the extensive number of lengthy, repetitive,
and sometimes frivolous motions and pleadings that have been
filed by Petitioner. This Court held the case in abeyance and
administratively closed it after the Michigan Supreme Court
remanded Petitioner's case back to the state courts to
reconsider Petitioner's post-conviction motions. This was
done to give Petitioner an opportunity to obtain
post-conviction relief in the state courts and, failing that,
to at least have an opportunity to adequately exhaust his
claims in the state courts before presenting them in this
Court. Petitioner's case is currently closed. There is no
reason at this point for Petitioner to file any additional
motions until or unless he is unsuccessful in obtaining
relief in the state courts, at which point he may move to
reopen the case as per the terms laid out in this Court's
opinion holding the petition in abeyance. See ECF
light of these frequent and often vexatious pleadings,
Petitioner is enjoined from filing any additional motions or
pleadings in this case without leave of this Court. Any new
motion or pleading filed by Petitioner must be accompanied
(1) an application for permission to file the pleading; and
(2) an affidavit demonstrating that plaintiff's
allegations have merit and that they are not a repetition of