Williams v. Campbell

Filing 14

OPINION & ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TAJUAN MARNEZ WILLIAMS,
Case No. 2:15-CV-12914
HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Petitioner,
v.
SHERMAN CAMPBELL,
Respondent,
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On February 1, 2016, petitioner’s motion to disqualify the Court from adjudicating
his habeas petition was denied. Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration.
For the reasons stated below, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for
reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration which presents the same
issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication,
will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628,
632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 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. MCI
Telecommunications Corp. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 79 F. Supp. 2d 768, 797
(E.D. Mich. 1999). A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

1

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied, because peitioner is merely
presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication, when the Court denied the motion to disqualify. See Hence v.
Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 549, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration
[Dkt. # 12] is DENIED.
s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated:February 23, 2016

2