From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vesey v. Scutt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Feb 13, 2013
CASE NO. 2:09-CV-14207 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-14207

02-13-2013

DENNIS WAYNE VESEY, Petitioner, v. DEBRA SCUTT, Respondent.


HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on Michigan prisoner Dennis Wayne Vesey's motion to alter or amend the judgment concerning the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Specifically, Petitioner challenges the Court's denial of relief on his claim that the trial court denied him the right to present a defense by excluding evidence of third-party culpability. The Court has granted Petitioner a certificate of appealability on that issue.

Petitioner brings his motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) and/or 59(e) and Local Rule 7.1. He claims that the Court's opinion "grossly understates the prejudice to the defense by the exclusion of relevant evidence" and goes on to discuss the trial facts and the state court's and this Court's rulings. However, 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). Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court concludes that 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). The Court properly reviewed this issue and determined that the Michigan Court of Appeals' denial of relief on this claim was neither contrary to Supreme Court precedent nor an unreasonable application thereof. While this issue deserves further review on appeal, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its decision denying habeas relief. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________

Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record on February 13, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Catherine A. Pickles

Judicial Assistant


Summaries of

Vesey v. Scutt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Feb 13, 2013
CASE NO. 2:09-CV-14207 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2013)
Case details for

Vesey v. Scutt

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS WAYNE VESEY, Petitioner, v. DEBRA SCUTT, Respondent.

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

Date published: Feb 13, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-14207 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2013)