Anthony v. Weidman et al
OPINION and ORDER denying 74 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Marianne O Battani. (CMot)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LORENZO ANTHONY, Plaintiff, v. WEIDMAN, et al. Defendants. _________________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's July 17th, 2008 Order (Doc. #74). The Court, ruling on Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, found that there was no way of determining the validity of Plaintiff's appeal when Plaintiff failed to present the Court with his appeal. Pursuant to Rule 7.1(g)(3) of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan, a motion for rehearing or reconsideration may be filed within ten days after the entry of the decision to which it objects. A motion for reconsideration which merely presents the same issues already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Czajkowski v. Tindall & Associates, P.C., 967 F.Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). A party moving for reconsideration bears a heavy burden. Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 36 F.Supp.2d 787, 789 (W.D. Mich.1998). In order to prevail, the movant must demonstrate: (1) the Court and the parties have been mislead by a palpable defect, and (2) the correction of that defect will result in a different disposition of the case. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). A "palpable defect" is an CASE NO. 07-10467 HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI
error which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain. Fleck v. Titan Tire Corp., 177 F.Supp.2d 605, 624 (E.D. Mich. 2001); Mktg. Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 262, 278 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Plaintiff objects to the Order, claiming that Plaintiff was not required to submit his appeal, simply his notice of appeal. However, the relevant statute provides that "[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Without the ability to review Plaintiff's appeal, the Court is unable to make this certification, and thus the Court was correct in denying Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Marianne O. Battani MARIANNE O. BATTANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: 9/09/08
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served upon counsel of record on this date by ordinary mail and electronic filing. s/Colette Motowski SECRETARY
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?