Smith v. Klee

Filing 23

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY SMITH,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 11-12481
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

PAUL KLEE,
Respondent,
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On June 1, 2012, the Court issued an opinion and order denying Petitioner Anthony’s Smith
petition for writ of habeas corpus and declining to issue a certificate of appealability or leave to
appeal in forma pauperis. ECF No. 19.

On June 15, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration. ECF No. 21. Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h) permits any party to
move for reconsideration of the Court’s conclusions within fourteen days of the entry of the order.
E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1). The Court does not permit a responsive pleading or hold hearings on
motions for reconsideration. Id. 7.1(h)(2).
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not grant
motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must
not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other
persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that
correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.
Id. “A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Scozzari
v. City of Clare, 723 F. Supp. 2d 974, 981-82 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (citation and quotation marks
omitted).

Furthermore, failure to address an issue constitutes a waiver or abandonment of the

argument. Sault St. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998).
Motions for reconsideration “are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration.” Id.; Scottsdale

Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 553 (6th Cir. 2008) (“We have found issues to be waived when
they are raised for the first time in motions for reconsideration.”).
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration restates arguments that have already been provided
to and considered by the Court and states his disagreement with the Court’s June 21, 2012 opinion
and order. The motion does not, however, “demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and
the parties [were] misled” and consequently must be denied. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g).
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: June 29, 2012

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means and on
Anthony Smith, #603827, Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, 2727
East Beecher Street, Adrian, Michigan 49221, by first class U.S. mail
on June 29, 2012.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS