Opinion
Case Number 2:17-cv-13081
05-04-2021
CHARLES HOLBROOK, Petitioner, v. ERICK BALCARCEL, Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITIONS/LETTERS FOR RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner, Charles Holbrook, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenged his state court convictions for two counts of producing child sexually abusive material, two counts of allowing a child to engage in child sexually abusive activity, two counts of possessing child sexual abusive material, accosting a child for immoral purposes, felon in possession of a firearm, and being a third felony habitual offender. Because petitioner had challenged these convictions in a prior habeas petition, this Court ordered that the case be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for authorization to file a successive habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). (ECF No. 3) The Sixth Circuit denied his request to file a successive habeas petition, noting that Petitioner has filed numerous federal habeas petitions and that the Sixth Circuit has denied his motions on multiple occasions. See In re Holbrook, U.S.C.A. No. 17-2242, ECF No. 22). Petitioner has now filed several new petitions/letters, which the Court construes are motions for reconsideration of the Court's previous opinion and order and the Sixth Circuit's order. For the reasons that follow, the petitions/motions are DENIED.
The Court denies petitioner's petitions/letters for reconsideration, because the Sixth Circuit denied Petitioner's request for permission to file a second or successive petition. In addition, Petitioner is not entitled to reconsideration of the Court's orders. A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)(motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) "are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration")(citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992)).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions/letters requesting for relief and/or for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 30-37) are DENIED.
s/Denise Page Hood
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: May 4, 2021