From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hardy v. Birkett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 7, 2012
Case Number: 2:10-cv-14310 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2012)

Opinion

Case Number: 2:10-cv-14310

03-07-2012

DAVID CALVIN HARDY, Petitioner, v. THOMAS BIRKETT, Respondent.


Honorable George Caram Steeh


OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pending before the Court is Petitioner's "Motion/Brief for Relief from Order" [Dkt. # 30], filed on February 16, 2012, concerning the Court's denial of his "Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Transfer" [Dkt. # 21]. See "Order Denying Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Transfer as Moot" [Dkt. # 29], Feb. 2, 2012. The Court construes Petitioner's motion as a motion for reconsideration of that order.

Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. See E. D. Mich. LR 7.1(h). 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); see also Williams v. McGinnis, 192 F. Supp. 2d 757, 759 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (same). A motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant demonstrates "a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled" and shows "that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case." E. D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3); Williams, 192 F. Supp. 2d at 759; MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 79 F. Supp. 2d 768, 797 (E.D. Mich. 1999). 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).

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration will be denied, because he is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court ruled on his motion for preliminary injunction. See Order Denying Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Transfer as Moot, Feb. 2, 2012.

Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner's "Motion/Brief for Relief from Order" [Dkt. # 30].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

March 7, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also to

David Hardy at Kinross Correctional Facility, 16770 S.

Watertower Drive, Kincheloe, MI 49788.

Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Hardy v. Birkett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 7, 2012
Case Number: 2:10-cv-14310 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2012)
Case details for

Hardy v. Birkett

Case Details

Full title:DAVID CALVIN HARDY, Petitioner, v. THOMAS BIRKETT, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Mar 7, 2012

Citations

Case Number: 2:10-cv-14310 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2012)