Silsby v. Hoffner
ORDER denying 7 petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
LARRY SILSBY, #156315,
CASE NO. 2:12-CV–13380
HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration regarding the
Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction. The Court
dismissed the petition due to the fact that Petitioner was discharged from the 1981 Oakland County
Circuit Court conspiracy to commit second-degree murder conviction and sentence challenged in
the petition in 1998.
Having reviewed Petitioner’s motion, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its dismissal
decision. 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). The Court did not rule that the case had become moot, but rather properly dismissed the
habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. This case is closed.
No further pleadings should be filed in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 11, 2012
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of this Order was served upon Larry Silsby #156315,
Lakeland Correctional Facility, 141 First Street, Coldwater, MI
49036, on September 11, 2012, by ordinary mail.
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?