Hoard v. Lafler

Filing 23

ORDER denying 20 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT HOARD IV,
Petitioner,

Case Number: 09-10604
Honorable David M. Lawson

v.
PAUL KLEE,
Respondent.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Petitioner Robert Hoard VI filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that
his state drug and firearms convictions were obtained in violation of his constitutional right to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to present a defense, to the effective assistance of
counsel, and to a fair trial. On March 22, 2012, the Court found that his claims lacked merit and
denied the petition. On the same day, the Court entered an order denying a certificate of
appealability. Presently, the matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s motion for a certificate
of appealability.
The Court has denied a certificate of appealability already; therefore, it will treat the
petitioner’s motion as one for reconsideration of the Court’s March 22, 2012 order denying
certificate of appealability. A motion for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to E.D. Mich.
LR 7.1(h)(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(h)(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).

The defendant has not presented any evidence of a palpable defect that misled the Court.
Instead, the defendant’s motion merely revisits issues already decided by the Court. Therefore, the
Court will deny the defendant’s motion for reconsideration. If the petitioner wishes to pursue his
appeal, he “may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 22.” Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for certificate of appealability
[dkt. #20] is DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: April 30, 2012

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 April 30, 2012.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-2-