Hollis v. Lafler

Filing 23

ORDER denying 20 Motion for Certificate of Appealability AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL. Signed by District Judge Paul D Borman. (DGoo)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TERRY DEJUAN HOLLIS, #364977, Petitioner, v. BLAINE LAFLER, Respondent. / ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS SEEKING RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S DECISION DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motions for a certificate of appealability and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [Dkt. #19, #20] concerning the Court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on January 22, 2010. The Court, however, denied a certificate of appealability and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in its opinion and order denying the petition. The Court finds no reason to reconsider that decision. A motion for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Petitioner has not met his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule 7.1(g)(3). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motions. S/Paul D. Borman PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 1, 2010 CASE NO. 2:06-CV-12428 HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on March 1, 2010. S/Denise Goodine 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?