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)

Download PDF
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

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?