Szymanski v. Renico

Filing 77

ORDER Denying 76 Petition filed by Eugene Szymanski. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EUGENE SZYMANSKI,
Petitioner,

Case Number 05-10241
Honorable David M. Lawson

v.
PAUL RENICO,
Respondent,
________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
The petitioner, Eugene Szymanski, presently confined at the Carson City Correctional
Facility in Carson City, Michigan, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Subsequently, on November 14, 2011 the petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment.
The Court denied the petitioner’s motion on November 22, 2011.
On December 14, 2011, the petitioner filed a motion entitled “Petition for Rehearing.” In
the motion, the petitioner, in apparent reference to the conviction underlying his petition for habeas
corpus, states that he did not waive his right to counsel and thus that his Sixth Amendment rights
were violated. The Court will treat the motion as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
November 22, 2011 order denying the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.
Motions for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(1) when the
moving party shows (1) a “palpable defect,” (2) that misled the court and the parties, and (3) that
correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3). A
“palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Mich. Dep’t
of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citations omitted). However,

motions for reconsideration should not be granted when they “merely present the same issues ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3).
In his motion, the petitioner has not demonstrated a palpable defect by which the Court was
misled in ruling on his summary judgment motion. Instead, the petitioner has reiterated arguments
included in his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. As the Court stated in its order
denying the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, the Court will review the issues raised by
the petitioner in its consideration of the petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court
concludes that the petitioner has not met his burden under Local Rule 7.1(g)(3). Therefore, the
Court will deny the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s petition for rehearing, considered as a
motion for reconsideration [dkt. #76] is DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: December 22, 2011

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 December 22, 2011.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-2-