Vesey v. Scutt
ORDER denying 16 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DENNIS WAYNE VESEY,
CASE NO. 2:09-CV-14207
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Michigan prisoner Dennis Wayne Vesey’s motion to alter
or amend the judgment concerning the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Specifically, Petitioner challenges the Court’s denial of relief on his
claim that the trial court denied him the right to present a defense by excluding evidence of thirdparty culpability. The Court has granted Petitioner a certificate of appealability on that issue.
Petitioner brings his motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) and/or 59(e)
and Local Rule 7.1. He claims that the Court’s opinion “grossly understates the prejudice to the
defense by the exclusion of relevant evidence” and goes on to discuss the trial facts and the state
court’s and this Court’s rulings. However, 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). Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court concludes
that 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(h)(3). The Court properly reviewed this issue and determined that the
Michigan Court of Appeals’ denial of relief on this claim was neither contrary to Supreme Court
precedent nor an unreasonable application thereof. While this issue deserves further review on
appeal, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its decision denying habeas relief. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: February 13, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record
on February 13, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
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?