Dasgupta v. Palmer

Filing 10

Opinion and Order Denying Petitioner's 8 , 9 Motions for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
NEIL ANTONIO DASGUPTA,
Petitioner,

Case No. 1:17-CV-10277
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
United States District Judge

v.
NOAH NAGY,
Respondent.
_________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
On January 27, 2017, Petitioner, Neil Antonio Dasgupta, presently incarcerated at the G.
Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, filed an application for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in the Wayne
County Circuit Court of first-degree felony murder and armed robbery. He was sentenced to
twenty-three years and nine months for the armed robbery conviction. The sentence was to be
served concurrently with a sentence of life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction.
On December 20, 2019, the Court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, declined
to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Petitioner filed
objections to the opinion, which are construed as motions for reconsideration. ECF Nos. 8, 9.
U.S. Dist. Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration.
However, a motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the
court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Id. The movant shall not
only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also
show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. U.S. Dist. Ct.

Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest, or plain.” See Scozzari v. City of Clare, 723 F. Supp. 2d 974, 981 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
The Court reviewed petitioner’s objections to the opinion denying habeas relief. Petitioner
is merely rehashing the same arguments that were considered and rejected in the Court’s previous
order. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied because he is merely presenting
issues which were already ruled upon, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the
Court denied the petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. See Hence v. Smith,
49 F. Supp. 2d 549, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a motion for reconsideration
in a habeas case. See e.g. Amr v. U.S., 280 F. App’x 480, 486 (6th Cir. 2008). A certificate of
appealability will not be issued because jurists of reason would not find this Court’s resolution of
petitioner’s motions for reconsideration to be debatable.
It is ORDERED that the motions for reconsideration [ECF Nos. 8, 9] are DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the Court DECLINES TO ISSUE a certificate of
appealability.
Dated: March 9, 2020

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney of record herein by electronic means and to Neil
Antonio Dasgupta #720336, G. ROBERT COTTON
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 3500 N. ELM ROAD, JACKSON, MI
49201 by first class U.S. mail on March 9, 2020.
s/Kelly Winslow
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager

-2-