Opinion
19-cv-10261
04-03-2023
CHARLES DOUGLAS Petitioner, v. MARK MCCULLICK, et al., Respondents.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 22)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Now pending before the Court is Petitioner Charles Douglas's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 11). On December 19, 2022, Douglas filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel and for Release on Bond. (See Mot., ECF No. 18.) The Court entered an Order denying that motion on March 21, 2023. (See Order, ECF No. 21.) Douglas has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 22), in which he asks the Court to reconsider its decision to deny his request to be released on bond.
Motions for reconsideration in this Court are governed by Local Rule 7.1(h). That rule provides that “motions for reconsideration [...] must be filed within 14 days after entry of the order” at issue. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(2). Such a motion “may be brought only upon the following grounds: (A) The court made a mistake, correcting the mistake changes the outcome of the prior decision, and the mistake was based on the record and law before the court at the time of its prior decision; (B) An intervening change in controlling law warrants a different outcome; or (C) New facts warrant a different outcome and the new facts could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the prior decision.” Id.
After carefully reviewing Douglas's Petition, the Court DENIES Douglas's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 22) because Douglas has not made a sufficient showing for relief under any of the three grounds for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1(h)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.