From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. Bauman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Oct 15, 2012
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-11160 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-11160

10-15-2012

JONATHAN PATRICK ROSE, #223157, Petitioner, v. CATHERINE BAUMAN, Respondent.


HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH


ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion for reconsideration regarding the Court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner challenges the Court's ruling that several of his claims are barred by procedural default due to his failure to properly exhaust those claims before the Michigan Court of Appeals when seeking review of the trial court's denial of his motion for relief from judgment. Petitioner asserts, for the first time, that the prison librarian refused to make copies of certain materials for submission to the appellate court.

Having reviewed Petitioner's motion, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its decision. The Court properly determined that several of Petitioner's claims are defaulted. A motion for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Additionally, the documents attached to Petitioner's motion indicate that he could have complied with the appellate court's order by preparing his exhibits by hand. Moreover, Petitioner is not entitled to reconsideration because the Court also ruled that Petitioner's defaulted claims lacked merit for the reasons stated by the state trial court in denying his motion for relief from judgment. Petitioner has not met his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. This case is closed. No further pleadings should be filed in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record and on

Jonathon Rose, #223157 at Kinross Correctional Facility,

16770 S. Watertower Drive, Kincheloe, MI 49788 on

October 15, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.


Barbara Radke

Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Rose v. Bauman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Oct 15, 2012
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-11160 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2012)
Case details for

Rose v. Bauman

Case Details

Full title:JONATHAN PATRICK ROSE, #223157, Petitioner, v. CATHERINE BAUMAN…

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

Date published: Oct 15, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-11160 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2012)