Lyons v. Lafler

Filing 72

ORDER denying 68 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 70 Motion for Contempt ; denying 71 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. 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 DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS (Dkt. # 68, # 70, & # 71)
Petitioner Leroy Lyons is a Michigan prisoner serving two life sentences. In 1999,
Lyons was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. In 2010, Lyons filed a habeas
corpus petition. This Court denied the petition. (Dkt. # 24). The Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals also denied a certificate of appealability. (Dkt. # 45). Lyons then filed a “Rule
60 Motion subsection (d) Fraud on this Court” (Dkt. #48), which the Court denied (Dkt.
49). The Court also denied Lyons’ “Motion for the State to Execute Its Constitutional
Mandated Duty to Pray for Justice from a Wrongful Conviction” (Dkt. # 65), and
“Motion to Correct or Modify the Record Based on Newly Discovered Evidence” (Dkt. #
66). Now before the Court are Lyons’ “Motion for Reconsideration, Request for
Appointment of Counsel” (Dkt. # 68), “Motion for the Court to Find the Michigan
Attorney General, Bill Schuette, Esq. and Raina Korbakis, Asst. Attorney General in
Civil Contempt” (Dkt. 70), and “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing” (Dkt. 71).

The three pending motions concern Lyons’ claim that he was wrongfully
convicted. First, Lyons seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his Motion to
Correct or Modify the Record Based on Newly Discovered Evidence. 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). Lyons’ motion raises the same issues already ruled upon by the
Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. He has not shown that the Court’s
decision was based upon a palpable defect. Lyons is not entitled to reconsideration of the
Court’s order nor is he entitled to appointment of counsel.
Second, Lyons asks the Court to find Attorney General Bill Schuette and Assistant
Attorney General Raina Korbakis in contempt of court because they withheld state court
files regarding prosecution witness, Mary Jefferson Glenn, which would have shown that
she testified pursuant to a deal with the prosecutor. Lyons’ challenge to the State’s
handling of this prosecution witness has been rejected both by this Court and the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals. See Dkt. # 49, #53, #59. The Court finds no basis for a
contempt proceeding.
2

Finally, Lyons seeks an evidentiary hearing to allow him to establish his actual
innocence and that the State perpetrated a fraud upon the Court. The habeas petition has
been denied. There is no proceeding pending before this Court. In addition, the claims
for which Lyons seeks factual support were raised and rejected by this Court and the
Court of Appeals. The Court will deny the motion.
The Court DENIES Petitioner’s “Motion for Reconsideration, Request for
Appointment of Counsel” (Dkt. # 68), “Motion for the Court to Find the Michigan
Attorney General, Bill Schuette, Esq. and Raina Korakis, Asst. Attorney General in Civil
Contempt” (Dkt. 70); and “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing” (Dkt. # 71).
SO ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATE: July 2, 2018

3