Haynes v. Gidley

Filing 17

ORDER Construing 15 Motion for Certificate of Appealability as Motion for Reconsideration, Denying Reconsideration, and Granting Motion to Proceed IFP on Appeal. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TROY HAYNES,
Case Number: 2:14-CV-13195
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

Petitioner,
v.
LORI GIDLEY,
Respondent.
/

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DENYING
RECONSIDERATION, AND GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
Petitioner Troy Haynes filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenged his 2010 convictions for two counts of first-degree
home invasion, extortion, and unarmed robbery. On September 2, 2016, the Court issued
an Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying
Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner has now filed a “Motion for Certificate of
Appealability” and a “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal.” Because the
Court already has denied a certificate of appealability, the Court construes Petitioner’s
motion as requesting reconsideration of its decision and denies reconsideration. The
Court grants Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Motions for reconsideration may be granted when the moving party shows (1) a
“palpable defect,” (2) by which the court and the parties were misled, and (3) the

correction of which will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R.
7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect” is a “defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest or plain.” Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich.
2004).
The Court denied a certificate of appealability (COA) because reasonable jurists
could not “debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been
resolved in a different manner” or that the issues presented were “adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
(citation omitted). Petitioner’s motion simply reasserts arguments advanced in his
petition and, therefore, fails to allege sufficient grounds upon which to grant
reconsideration. L.R. 7.1(h)(3) (“[T]he Court will not grant motions for rehearing or
reconsideration that merely present the same issues relied upon by the Court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication.”). The Court’s decision denying a COA was not
based upon a palpable defect by which the Court was misled and the Court will deny the
motion.
Also before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on
Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) provides that a party to a districtcourt action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district
court. An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the court determines that it is not
taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “[T]o determine that an appeal is in good
faith, a court need only find that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has
2

some merit.” Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir. 2000). While the Court
held that jurists of reason would not find the Court’s decision that the petition was
meritless to be debatable or wrong, the Court finds that an appeal may be taken in good
faith.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s “Motion for Certificate of
Appealability” (ECF No. 15), which the Court has construed as a “Motion for
Reconsideration.” The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis on Appeal (ECF No. 16).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2016

S/ Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on October 18, 2016, the foregoing document was served on counsel
of record via electronic means and upon Troy Haynes via First Class mail at the address
below:
Troy Haynes
199141
MUSKEGON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
2400 S. SHERIDAN
MUSKEGON, MI 49442

S/ J. McCoy
Case Manager

3