Walker v. Gidley

Filing 13

ORDER Construing 11 Letter as Motion for Reconsideration and Denying Motion. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (SBur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LORING WALKER,
Case Number: 2:14-CV-13337
HON. SEAN F. COX

Petitioner,
v.
LORI GIDLEY,
Respondent.
/

ORDER CONSTRUING 5/27/15 LETTER AS MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING MOTION
Petitioner Loring Walker is a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Oaks
Correctional Facility in Manistee, Michigan. He filed a pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus claiming that he is incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights.
The Court issued an Order to Correct Deficiency because Petitioner failed to submit two
copies of his petition as required by Rule 3(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The
Court required Petitioner to correct the deficiency within twenty-one days and cautioned
that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the petition. The Court subsequently
dismissed the petition without prejudiced because Petitioner failed to correct the
deficiency within the time prescribed. Petitioner then filed a letter dated January 13,
2015, arguing that the matter should be reopened because he submitted the required
copies with his original petition. The Court construed the letter as a motion to reopen the
proceeding, and denied the motion. See 2/20/15 Order, ECF No. 10. Petitioner has filed

another letter, dated May 27, 2015, in which he again argues that the habeas proceeding
should be reopened. See ECF No. 11. The Court construes this letter as a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Petitioner’s request reopen this proceeding.1
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 Petitioner’s motion to reopen because Petitioner had notice of
the filing deficiency prior to the Court’s dismissal of his petition and failed to cure the
deficiency. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is based upon disagreement with the
Court’s decision. A motion predicated upon such argument fails to allege sufficient
grounds upon which to grant reconsideration. L.R. 7.1(h)(3); see also Meekison v. Ohio
Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio 1998). Petitioner
fails to demonstrate that the Court’s decision denying his motion to reopen was based
upon a palpable defect by which the Court was misled and the Court will deny the
motion.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s May 27, 2015 letter, ECF No. 11,

1

Petitioner also filed a letter dated July 23, 2015, inquiring into the status of his
case. The instant Order should answer Petitioner’s inquiry. This matter was closed on
November 12, 2014, and remains closed.
2

is construed as a motion for reconsideration and the motion is DENIED.

S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: October 23, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
October 23, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager

3