From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hicks v. Berghuis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Oct 15, 2013
Case Number: 10-15161 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2013)

Opinion

Case Number: 10-15161

2013-10-15

MICKEY HICKS, Petitioner, v. MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent.


HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW


OPINION AND ORDER (1) CONSTRUING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND (2) DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Petitioner Mickey Hicks filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hicks challenged his conviction for unarmed robbery. On June 21, 2013, the Court issued an "Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Granting in Part a Certificate of Appealability." Petitioner has now filed a "Motion for Certificate of Appealability." Because the Court already has decided this issue, the Court construes Petitioner's motion as requesting reconsideration of its decision.

Motions for reconsideration may be granted when the moving party shows (1) a "palpable defect," (2) by which the court and the parties were misled, and (3) the correction of which will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A "palpable defect" is a "defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain." Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004).

The Court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and denied a COA as to the remaining issues because reasonable jurists could not "debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner" or that the issues presented were "adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation omitted). Petitioner's arguments for reconsideration amount to a disagreement with the Court's decision. A motion predicated upon such argument fails to allege sufficient grounds upon which to grant reconsideration. L.R. 7.1(h)(3); see also, Meekison v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio 1998). Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the Court's decision denying in part a COA was based upon a palpable defect by which the Court was misled.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's "Motion for Certificate of Appealability" [dkt. # 13], which the Court has construed as a "Motion for Reconsideration."

________________

Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record on October 15, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Catherine A. Pickles

Judicial Secretary


Summaries of

Hicks v. Berghuis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Oct 15, 2013
Case Number: 10-15161 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2013)
Case details for

Hicks v. Berghuis

Case Details

Full title:MICKEY HICKS, Petitioner, v. MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent.

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

Date published: Oct 15, 2013

Citations

Case Number: 10-15161 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2013)