Lively v. Birkett

Filing 22

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ERIC LIVELY,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-12110
HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

v.
TOM BIRKETT,

Respondent.
____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On June 25, 2013, the Court denied petitioner a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also denied
petitioner a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Lively v. Birkett,
No. 2:10-CV-12110, 2013 WL 3224419 (E.D. Mich. June 25, 2013). Petitioner has now filed a
motion for reconsideration. For the reasons stated below, the motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.
U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration.
However, 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. See Sheet Metal Employers
Industry Promotion Fund v. Absolut Balancing Co. Inc., 884 F. Supp. 2d 617, 626 (E.D. Mich.
2012)(citing E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3)). A party moving for reconsideration shall 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 of the alleged defect. Id. “A
‘palpable defect’ is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Id.
In the present case, petitioner has made a number of lengthy arguments in support of his
1

motion for reconsideration. All of these arguments were considered by this Court, however, either
expressly, or by reasonable implication, when the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus
and denied petitioner a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will therefore be denied, because petitioner is merely
presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication, when the Court denied petitioner’s habeas application and denied him a certificate of
appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 549, 553
(E.D. Mich. 1999).
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration [dkt. # 21] is DENIED.

Dated: August 6, 2013

S/LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2