Moore v. Berghuis
Filing
19
OPINION and ORDER denying 14 Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Motion to Alter or Amend and/or Motion for Reconsideration and; denying 15 Motion to Alter or Amend and/or; denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GACOLBY TARSHAR MOORE,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil No. 2:13-CV-12225
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
RANDALL HAAS,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF
TIME TO FILE A MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND AND/OR MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING THE MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
AND/OR FOR RECONSIDERATION
On October 29, 2013, the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas
corpus that had been filed by petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court
also denied petitioner a certificate of appealability. See Moore v. Haas, No. 2:13CV-12225, 2013 WL 5819593 (E.D. Mich. October 29, 2013). On December 5,
2013, petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit. Petitioner has also filed a motion for an enlargement of time
to file a motion to alter or amend judgment and/or motion for reconsideration and
a motion to alter or amend judgment and/or motion for reconsideration. For the
reasons that follow, the motions are DENIED.
Petitioner is not entitled to an extension of time to file his motion to alter or
amend and/or motion for reconsideration of the Court’s opinion and order denying
habeas relief because the motion to alter or amend judgment and/or motion for
1
Moore v. Haas, No. 2:13-CV-12225
reconsideration is untimely. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(1) states that: “A motion for
rehearing or reconsideration must be filed within ten days after entry of the
judgment or order.” Id. The provisions of Local Rule 7.1 are analogous to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), which provides that any motion to alter or amend a judgment
shall be filed no later than ten days after entry of the judgment. United States v.
Moss, 189 F.R.D. 354, 355, n. 2 (E.D. Mich. 1999). A habeas petitioner’s motion
to amend or alter judgment denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus is
untimely when it is filed more than ten days after the judgment is entered. Hence
v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
The Court issued its opinion on October 29, 2013. Petitioner signed and
dated his motion to alter or amend and/or motion for reconsideration on
November 21, 2013. Absent evidence to the contrary, a federal court will
assume, pursuant to the “prison mailbox rule,” that a prisoner gave his habeas
petition or other pleadings to prison officials on the date he signed it. See e.g.
Hudson v. Martin, 68 F. Supp. 2d 798, 799, n. 2 (E.D. Mich. 1999). The Court is
willing to apply the prison mailbox rule in determining whether petitioner’s motion
to alter or to amend judgement and/or for reconsideration was timely filed within
the ten day limit for filing such a motion. See e.g. Aird v. United States, 339 F.
Supp. 2d 1305, 1308 (S.D. Ala. 2004). The Court also excludes Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays from the computation of the time for filing a motion to
2
Moore v. Haas, No. 2:13-CV-12225
alter or amend and/or motion for reconsideration. See Johnson v. Unknown
Dellatifa, 357 F. 3d 539, 542 (6th Cir. 2004). However, even excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays from the computation, petitioner’s motion to alter or
to amend judgment and/or motion for reconsideration was due no later than
November 14, 2013. 1 The instant motion to alter or to amend judgment and/or
for reconsideration is therefore untimely.
District courts do not have discretion to enlarge the time for filing a motion
to alter or amend judgment brought under Rule 59(e). See FHQ Equities, LLC v.
MBL Life Assurance Corp., 188 F. 3d 678, 682 (6th Cir. 1999). A district court is
also without power to enlarge the time for making motions for reconsideration of
their orders. See Denley v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 733 F. 2d 39, 41
(6th Cir. 1984). Simply put, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s
motion to alter or to amend judgment and/or motion for reconsideration because
the motion was filed more than ten days after the court issued its opinion and
order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Allen v. Hemingway, 24
Fed. Appx. 346, 347 (6th Cir. 2001).
This Court also lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s motion to alter or
amend and/or motion for reconsideration because petitioner has filed a notice of
appeal in this case. A notice of appeal generally “confers jurisdiction on the court
1
Veteran’s Day fell on Monday, November 14, 2013.
3
Moore v. Haas, No. 2:13-CV-12225
of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case
involved in the appeal.” Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons,
470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985)(citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459
U.S. 56, 58 (1982)( per curiam )); See also Workman v. Tate, 958 F. 2d 164, 167
(6th Cir. 1992). Because petitioner has filed a notice of appeal, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to amend its original opinion and order to consider the merits of
petitioner’s case. Workman, 958 F. 2d at 167-68; See also Raum v. Norwood, 93
Fed. Appx. 693, 695 (6th Cir. 2004)(Plaintiffs deprived district court of jurisdiction
over their motion for reconsideration by filing notice of appeal before district court
had chance to make decision on motion to reconsider).
Finally, even if this Court had jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion to alter or
amend judgment and/or motion for reconsideration, it would still deny the motion.
A motion to alter or amend judgment brought by a habeas petitioner pursuant to
Rule 59 (e) may properly be analyzed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to
Local Rule 7.1 of the Eastern District of Michigan. Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d
at 550. U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for
reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant
demonstrates a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been
misled and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction
thereof. Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 340 F. Supp. 2d 773, 774 (E.D. Mich. 2004);
4
Moore v. Haas, No. 2:13-CV-12225
Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 550-51 (citing L.R. 7.1(g)(3)). A motion for
reconsideration which merely presents “the same issues ruled upon by the Court,
either expressly or by reasonable implication,” shall be denied. Ward, 340 F.
Supp. 2d at 774.
Petitioner raises the same arguments in his motion to alter or amend
judgment and/or motion for reconsideration that he raised in his original petition
and that were considered by the Court in adjudicating petitioner’s case.
Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend judgement and/or motion for reconsideration
will 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 the petition for writ of habeas corpus and denied petitioner a
certificate of appealability. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 553.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for enlargement of time to file
a motion to alter or amend and/or motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 14) and the
motion to alter or amend and/or motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 15) are
DENIED.
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: December 18, 2013
5
Moore v. Haas, No. 2:13-CV-12225
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel/parties of record on December 18, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary
mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Assistant
6
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?