Aldred v. Birkett

Filing 7

ORDER denying 5 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CLARENCE ALDRED,
Petitioner,

Case No. 11-CV-14925

v.

HON. AVERN COHN

THOMAS BIRKETT,
Respondent.
_____________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 5)
I.
This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 28, 2011, the
Court summarily dismissed the petition on the ground that the claims raised in the
petition–regarding the rescission of his parole–failed to state a claim upon which habeas
relief could be granted. Doc. 4. Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
II.
Motions for reconsideration are governed by E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h) which provides
in relevant part:
Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not
grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the
same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by implication.
The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion
have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a
different disposition of the case.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3).
Petitioner fails to satisfy this standard. Petitioner indicates that his original

habeas petition was prepared by a fellow inmate, whom he alleges drafted the claims
improperly. Petitioner asks to be permitted to file a corrected petition, which is attached
to the motion for reconsideration and which Petitioner says would state a cognizable
claim for habeas relief. Petitioner is mistaken. The Court has reviewed the claims that
Petitioner intends to present in the corrected petition. They are essentially identical to
the claims that raised in the original petition. As such, those claims also fail to state a
claim for habeas relief, as explained in the order of summary dismissal. Because the
motion for reconsideration and the corrected petition present the same issues
previously ruled upon, Petitioner is unable to establish that he is entitled to have the
court reconsider its previous decision to deny habeas relief.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 21, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Clarence Aldred
159036, Pine River Correctional Facility, 320 N. Hubbard Street, St. Louis, MI 48880 on
this date, December 21, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

2