Opinion
Case Nos. 05-X-10231-BC, 05-X-10232-BC, 05-X-10233-BC.
October 6, 2005
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On June 27, 2005, the plaintiff, Edward Earl Thomas, presented three complaints together with three motions to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the plaintiff's complaints did not make out a coherent cause of action, his applications for in forma pauperis status were denied on September 2, 2005.
On September 26, 2005, the plaintiff submitted three motions for reconsideration of the Court's previous rulings. The Local Rules of this Court permit a party to file a motion for reconsideration of a ruling within ten days after its entry by the Court. Such a motion will be granted only if the movant identifies a "palpable defect" in this court's disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3). A "palpable defect" is a one that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Fleck v. Titan Tire Corp., 177 F. Supp. 2d 605, 624 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Here, the Court will deny the motion because the plaintiff has not shown a palpable defect in the Court's order.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration [dkt # 3] is DENIED.