Cooper v. Haas

Filing 21

ORDER Mooting Applications [13 & 17] to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs on Appeal and Denying Motions [14 & 18] for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL COOPER,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 16-10549
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
RANDALL HAAS,

Respondent.
__________________________________/
ORDER MOOTING APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS ON APPEAL
AND
DENYING MOTIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
This matter is before the Court on Applications to Proceed Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs on Appeal and Motions for Certificate of Appealability filed by
Petitioner. (Doc. Nos. 13, 17 and 14, 18) The Court issued its Judgment and Order
dismissing the habeas petition on February 3, 2017. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11) Petitioner
filed a Notice of Appeal on March 2, 2017. (Doc. No. 12) In its Order, the Court
declined to issue a certificate of appealability, but allowed Petitioner to proceed on
appeal without prepaying the fees and costs. (Doc. No. 10, Pg ID 914)
Given that the Court has allowed Petitioner to proceed on appeal without
prepaying the fees and costs, Petitioner’s Applications to Proceed Without Prepaying

Fees or Costs on Appeal (Doc. Nos. 13 and 17) are MOOT. As to Petitioner’s
Motions for Certificate of Appealability, it appears Petitioner seeks reconsideration
of the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability.
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. E.D.
Mich. LR 7.1(h); Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628,
632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by
which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different
disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. Id. 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). To warrant a grant of a certificate of
appealability, “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). Petitioner’s motion raises the same issues already
ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. Petitioner has
not shown that the Court’s order denying a certificate of appealability was issued with
a palpable defect. Petitioner is not entitled to reconsideration of the Court’s order
declining to issue a certificate of appealability.
2

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Applications to Proceed Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs on Appeal (Doc. Nos. 13 and 17) are MOOT, the Court having allowed
Petitioner to appeal without prepaying fees or costs in its February 3, 2017 Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Certificate of
Appealability (Doc. Nos. 14 and 18) are DENIED for the reasons set forth above and
in its February 3, 2017 Order. A certificate of appealability will not issue in this case.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: March 8, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on March 8, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3