Tennille v. Terris

Filing 8

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

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-