Opinion
Case Number: 2:10-CV-11386
03-05-2013
LEROY LYONS, Petitioner, v. BLAINE LAFLER, Respondent.
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner Leroy Lyons filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, a state inmate, challenged his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder. On August 23, 2012, the Court issued an "Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability." Petitioner has now filed a "Motion for Certificate of Appealability." Because the Court already has denied a certificate of appealability (COA), the Court construes Petitioner's motion as requesting reconsideration of that denial.
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).
Petitioner asks the Court to reconsider its denial of a certificate of appealability. The Court declined to issue a 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. # 42], which the Court has construed as a "Motion for Reconsideration."
SO ORDERED.
______________________
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Leroy Lyons by electronic means or U.S. Mail
on March 5, 2013.
Carol A. Pinegar
Deputy Clerk