Watkins v. Lafler

Filing 55

ORDER denying 48 & 49 Motions for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PRENTICE DEVELL WATKINS,
Petitioner,

Civil No. 04-CV-72112-DT
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
JEFFREY WOODS,
Respondent,
___________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
On September 10, 2010, the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court also granted petitioner a certificate of
appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Watkins v. Woods, No. 2010
WL 3582928 (E.D. Mich. September 10, 2010). Petitioner has now filed two duplicate
motions for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, the motions for reconsideration
are 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). 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.

1

Watkins v. Woods, 04-CV-72112-DT
Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration will be denied, because petitioner is
merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly
or by reasonable implication, when the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas
corpus. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 553.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motions for reconsideration
[Dkt. ## 48 and 49] are DENIED.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: May 17, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel
of record on May 17, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Secretary

2