Meridy v. Ludwick

Filing 36

OPINION and ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 35 and Granting Petitioner's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal 34 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDWIN DANTREL MERIDY,
Case Number: 2:08-CV-15249

Petitioner,

HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
NICK J. LUDWICK,
Respondent.
/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
Petitioner Edwin Dantrel Meridy filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenged his convictions for second-degree

murder, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony firearm. On July 31, 2017, the
Court issued an Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Denying Certificate of Appealability. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s

Motion to Reconsider Denial of a Certificate of Appealability (Doc. No. 35) and
Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (Doc. No. 34).
A motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be
granted. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h); Streater v. Cox, 336 Fed. App’x 470, 477 (6th

Cir. 2009). The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different disposition of
the case must result from a correction thereof. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h). A “palpable
defect” is a “defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Olson v.
The Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004). To warrant a grant of a

certificate of appealability, “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner’s
motion raises the same issues already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or
by reasonable implication. Petitioner has not shown that the Court’s denial of a
certificate of appealability was based upon a palpable defect. Petitioner is not
entitled to reconsideration of the Court’s order declining to issue a certificate of
appealability.
Also before the Court is Petitioner’s Application for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis on Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1)
provides that a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma
pauperis must file a motion in the district court. An appeal may not be taken in
forma pauperis if the court determines that it is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3). “[T]o determine that an appeal is in good faith, a court need only

2

find that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has some merit.”
Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir. 2000). While the Court held that
jurists of reason would not find the Court’s decision that the petition was meritless
to be debatable or wrong, the Court finds that an appeal may be taken in good faith.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider the
District Court’s Denial of a Certificate of Appealability (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED
and Petitioner’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis On Appeal
(Doc. No. 34) is GRANTED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: March 20, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on March 20, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3