From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Birkett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 13, 2012
Civil No. 2:07-CV-15376 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2012)

Opinion

Civil No. 2:07-CV-15376

03-13-2012

MURAD WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. THOMAS BIRKETT, Respondent


HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW


OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION RELEASING PETITIONER ON BOND

On March 6, 2012, this Court ordered the Clerk of the Court to reopen the petition to the Court's active docket following the Sixth Circuit's remand to this Court for further proceedings. The Court also ordered that the Federal Defender Office be appointed again to represent petitioner. The Court ordered that petitioner be released on a personal recognizance bond during the pendency of these proceedings in the district court. Lastly, the Court set deadlines for the parties to file pleadings in this matter.

Respondent has now filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision to release petitioner on personal bond. For the reasons that follow, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant demonstrates a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 340 F. Supp. 2d 773, 774 (E.D. Mich. 2004); Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550-51 (E.D. Mich. 1999 (citing L.R. 7.1(g)(3)). A motion for reconsideration which merely presents "the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication," shall be denied. Ward, 340 F. Supp. 2d at 774.

Respondent's motion for reconsideration will be denied, because respondent is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court decided to release petitioner on personal bond while this case is on remand from the Sixth Circuit. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 553.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 49] is DENIED.

______________

Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon partiles/counsel of record on March 13, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Catherine A. Pickles

Judicial Secretary


Summaries of

Williams v. Birkett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 13, 2012
Civil No. 2:07-CV-15376 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2012)
Case details for

Williams v. Birkett

Case Details

Full title:MURAD WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. THOMAS BIRKETT, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 13, 2012

Citations

Civil No. 2:07-CV-15376 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2012)