Colvin v. Berghuis

Full title: ROMALLIS DELCI COLVIN, Petitioner, v. MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 27, 2006

Civil No. 05-74888-DT (E.D. Mich. Nov. 27, 2006)

Opinion

Civil No. 05-74888-DT.

November 27, 2006

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

GEORGE STEEH, District Judge

On October 5, 2006, this Court issued an opinion and order summarily dismissing petitioner's application for habeas relief on the ground that the petition had not been filed in compliance with the one year statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This Court also denied petitioner a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Colvin v. Berghuis, No. 2006 WL 2865222 (E.D.Mich. October 05, 2006). Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons stated below, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED

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 which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 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 show that correcting the defect will lead to a different disposition of the case. See DirecTV, Inc. v. Karpinsky, 274 F. Supp. 2d 918, 921 (E.D. Mich. 2003).

In the present case, petitioner has made a number of lengthy arguments in support of his motion for reconsideration. All of these arguments were considered by this Court, however, either expressly, or by reasonable implication, when the Court summarily dismissed his petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that petitioner had failed to comply with the one year statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner's motion for reconsideration will therefore be denied, because petitioner is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court summarily dismissed his petition for writ of habeas corpus and denied petitioner a certificate of appealability. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 549, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999).

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.