Tennille v. Terris

Filing 8

ORDER Denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (Sian, M)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION LAWRENCE K. TENNILLE, Petitioner, v Case No. 17-cv-10750 Honorable Thomas L. Ludington J. A. TERRIS, Respondent. __________________________________________/ ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Petitioner Lawrence K. Tennille is a federal prisoner currently imprisoned at the Milan Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan. Petitioner was convicted after a jury trial in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, his third felony drug conviction. Tennille was sentenced to life in prison. See United States v. Tennille, 365 Fed. Appx. 613 (6th Cir. 2010). On March 7, 2017 Tennille filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that he was actually innocent of the mandatory life sentence for conspiring to deliver over 50 grams of crack cocaine and that he was actually innocent of being extraditable and a fugitive from justice. See ECF No. 1. A preliminary review of the petition revealed that Tennille had already filed nine petitions for post-conviction relief in the Eastern District of Kentucky under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255, one of which unsuccessfully asserted the same claims raised in the petition before this Court. See United States v. Tennille, E.D. Ky. No. 96-16, ECF Nos. 146, 178, 186, 188, 222, 242, 293, 324, 332. Because Tennille was procedurally barred from filing a second or successive habeas petition raising claims that were already decided against him in a prior habeas action by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), (b)(1), and the doctrine of claim preclusion, his petition was dismissed. See ECF No. 4. Petitioner Tennille now moves for reconsideration of that dismissal. See ECF No. 7. A motion for reconsideration will be granted if the moving party shows: “(1) a palpable defect, (2) the defect misled the court and the parties, and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” Michigan Dept. of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733-34 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (quoting E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3)). A “palpable defect” is “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Id. at 734 (citing Marketing Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 262, 278 (E.D. Mich. 1997)). “Motions for rehearing or reconsideration which merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, shall not be granted.” Id. (quoting E.D. Mich. 7.1(h)(3)). In his current motion Tennille does not identify any palpable defect in the Court’s previous order, but merely attempts to reargue his procedurally barred claims. Tennille’s motion for reconsideration will therefore be denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’sTennille’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 7, is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. Dated: April 4, 2017 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 or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on April 4, 2017. s/Michael A. Sian MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?