Lyons v. Lafler

Filing 44

ORDER denying 42 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEROY LYONS,
Case Number: 2:10-CV-11386

Petitioner,

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
BLAINE LAFLER,
Respondent.
/

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner Leroy Lyons filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, a state inmate, challenged his convictions for two counts of
first-degree murder. On August 23, 2012, the Court issued an “Opinion and Order
Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability.”
Petitioner has now filed a “Motion for Certificate of Appealability.” Because the Court
already has denied a certificate of appealability (COA), the Court construes Petitioner’s
motion as requesting reconsideration of that denial.
Motions for reconsideration may be granted when the moving party shows (1) a
“palpable defect,” (2) by which the court and the parties were misled, and (3) the
correction of which will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R.
7.1(h)(3). 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).
Petitioner asks the Court to reconsider its denial of a certificate of appealability.
The Court declined to issue a COA because reasonable jurists could not “debate whether
(or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner” or that the issues presented were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation omitted). Petitioner’s
arguments for reconsideration amount to a disagreement with the Court’s decision. A
motion predicated upon such argument fails to allege sufficient grounds upon which to
grant reconsideration. L.R. 7.1(h)(3); see also, Meekison v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation
and Correction, 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio 1998). Petitioner fails to demonstrate
that the Court’s decision denying a COA was based upon a palpable defect by which the
Court was misled.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s “Motion for Certificate of
Appealability” [dkt. # 42], which the Court has construed as a “Motion for
Reconsideration.”
SO ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: March 5, 2013

2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Leroy Lyons by electronic means or U.S. Mail
on March 5, 2013.
S/Carol A. Pinegar
Deputy Clerk

3