Pouncy v. Palmer

Filing 295

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 294 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Case 2:13-cv-14695-MFL-LJM ECF No. 295 filed 04/30/20

PageID.12247

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
OMAR RASHAD POUNCY,
Petitioner,

Case No. 13-cv-14695
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CARMEN D. PALMER,
Respondent.
_______________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 294)
On April 14, 2020, the Court held an on-the-record status conference with counsel
for all parties. During that status conference, the Court proposed that the parties file a new
round of final briefs on Petitioner Omar Rashad Pouncy’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. Neither Pouncy’s counsel nor counsel for Respondent objected to the Court’s
proposal. Accordingly, following the status conference, the Court entered a written order
directing the filing of the final briefs. (See ECF No. 293.)
Pouncy has now filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order setting the
briefing schedule. (See Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 294.) Pouncy says that
additional briefing by both parties is unnecessary. (See id.) The Court disagrees and
DENIES Pouncy’s motion.
Motions for reconsideration in this Court are governed by Local Rule 7.1(h). That
rule provides that:

1

Case 2:13-cv-14695-MFL-LJM ECF No. 295 filed 04/30/20

PageID.12248

Page 2 of 3

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 reasonable 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. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).
Pouncy has failed to persuade the Court that it palpably erred when it set the revised
briefing schedule. Given the unique posture of this case – and the developments that have
occurred since the Court set the previous briefing schedule and the parties’ submitted their
opening briefs – the Court remains convinced that the most efficient way for the parties to
present their arguments and for the Court to digest those arguments is through the revised
briefing schedule currently in place. The Court has broad discretion over the control of its
docket, and Pouncy has not shown any error in the exercise of that discretion here. The
Court will promptly evaluate the arguments in the final round of briefing once those briefs
are filed.
For all of these reasons, Pouncy’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 294) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2020

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 2:13-cv-14695-MFL-LJM ECF No. 295 filed 04/30/20

PageID.12249

Page 3 of 3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on April 30, 2020, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3