Hickey v. Palmer

Filing 30

ORDER denying Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 29 . Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (McColley, N)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KAINTE DESHAWN HICKEY,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-14635
HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
MATT MACAULEY,
Respondent.
_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is
represented by counsel. The case is currently stayed to allow Petitioner to exhaust
state court remedies on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and the case is
pending before the Wayne County Circuit Court.1 The matter is currently before
the Court on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration concerning the Court’s order
denying his motions for summary judgment and for bond. Petitioner’s motion
must be denied.

1

The case before the Wayne County Circuit Court was recently stayed. Based upon a
conference call with the parties, the Court believes that this was done to allow the Wayne
County Conviction Integrity Unit to investigate the case.

Hickey v. Macauley
Case No. 2:12-CV-14635
Page 2 of 3

First, as with the original motions, given that the case is stayed and
administratively closed and has not yet been reopened for further review,
Petitioner’s motion is not properly before the Court. Second, a motion for
reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order at
issue. Local Rule 7.1(h)(1). The Court denied the summary judgment and bond
motions on April 5, 2021. Petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration on June
9, 2021 – long after the established time limit expired. His motion for
reconsideration is therefore untimely. Third, a motion for reconsideration which
presents issues already ruled upon by the district 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). Such is the case here. The Court properly denied the
motions for the reasons stated in its original order. Petitioner is in the midst of
exhausting state court remedies and summary judgment and bond are not
warranted. Petitioner fails to meet 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). Reconsideration is not warranted.
2

Hickey v. Macauley
Case No. 2:12-CV-14635
Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_s/Arthur J. Tarnow_______________
ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 21, 2021

3