Opinion
Case Number: 2:13-CV-14019
01-15-2014
MICHAEL WARD, #128267, Petitioner, v. KENNETH MCKEE, Respondent.
HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS
OPINION AND ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER'S LETTER
AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING MOTION [#8]
Petitioner Michael Ward, presently confined at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus to contest the revocation of his parole and the parole board's subsequent decisions denying his re-release on parole. The Court determined that the petition was a successive one under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), and that Petitioner did not receive prior authorization to file a successive petition. On October 3, 2013, the Court transferred the petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for a determination whether Petitioner is authorized to file a successive petition. Now before the Court is Petitioner's letter titled "Liberally Construe as a 'Motion.'" The Court construes the letter as a motion for reconsideration of its decision transferring the petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
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's motion raises no persuasive arguments for reconsideration, amounting only to a disagreement with the Court's decision transferring the petition. 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 was based upon a palpable defect by which the Court was misled.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's letter motion for reconsideration [dkt. #8].
SO ORDERED.
__________
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on January 15, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Johnetta M. Curry-Williams
Case Manager
Acting in the Absence of Carol Hemeyer