Opinion
Case Number: 5:11-CV-13621
05-06-2014
DEANDRE KING, Petitioner, v. STEVE RIVARD, Respondent.
HON. JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA
OPINION AND ORDER (1) CONSTRUING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND (2) DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner Deandre King filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hicks challenged his convictions for second-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, discharging a firearm in an occupied dwelling, receiving and concealing stolen firearm, and felony firearm. On March 21, 2014, the Court issued an "Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying 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 denied a certificate of appealability (COA) 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 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. # 17], which the Court has construed as a "Motion for Reconsideration."
SO ORDERED.
John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, May 6, 2014, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.
William Barkholz
Case Manager