Turnpaugh v. Maciejewski et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 5 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Gerald E Rosen. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONALD TURNPAUGH, Plaintiff, vs. KENNETH A. MACIEJEWSKI, Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan on January 21, 2009 PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen Chief Judge, United States District Court

No. 08-CV- 12842-DT Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order construing his complaint as a second or successive habeas corpus petition and, accordingly, transferring his case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
The requirements for the granting of motions for reconsideration are set forth in Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(g), which provides in relevant part: Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.

L.R. 7.1(g)(3). Therefore, in order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled, he must also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction of that defect. A "palpable defect" is "a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain." United States v. Lockette, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Moreover, a motion that merely presents the same issues already ruled upon by the Court -- either expressly or by reasonable implication -- will not be granted. L.R. 7.1(g). Plaintiff Turnpaugh's motion for reconsideration does just that -- it presents the same issues already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. Furthermore, Turnpaugh has not shown a "palpable defect" by which the Court has been misled. For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen Chief Judge, United States District Court Dated: January 21, 2009 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on January 21, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry Case Manager