Williams v. Jackson

Filing 17

OPINION and ORDER denying 14 Motion for appeal bond; denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration; and,denying a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHNNY L. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

CASE N0. 2:16-CV-12042
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

v.
SHANE JACKSON,

Respondent,
____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
DENYING THE MOTION FOR APPEAL BOND, AND DENYING A
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FROM THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
On April 26, 2017, this Court denied petitioner a writ of habeas corpus,
declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and granted leave to appeal in
forma pauperis. Williams v. Jackson, No. 2:16-cv-12042, 2017 WL 1493012 (E.D.
Mich. Apr. 26, 2017).
Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for an appeal
bond. For the reasons that follow, the motions are DENIED.
U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for
reconsideration. 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. Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 340 F. Supp. 2d 773, 774 (E.D. Mich. 2004);
1

Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550-51 (E.D. Mich. 1999 (citing L.R.
7.1(g)(3)). A motion for reconsideration which merely presents “the same issues
ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication,” shall be
denied. Ward, 340 F. Supp. 2d at 774.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied, because petitioner is
merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court denied the petition for writ
of habeas corpus. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 553.
A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a motion for
reconsideration in a habeas case. See e.g. Amr v. U.S., 280 F. App’x. 480, 486
(6th Cir. 2008). This Court denies petitioner a certificate of appealability, because
jurists of reason would not find this Court’s resolution of petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration to be debatable.
Petitioner filed a motion for release on bond.
To receive bond pending a decision on the merits of a habeas corpus
petition, a petitioner must show a substantial claim of law based on the facts and
exceptional circumstances justifying special treatment in the interest of justice.
Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993)(quoting Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d
77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990)). There will be few occasions where a habeas petitioner
meets this standard. Dotson, 900 F. 2d at 79. Federal courts may grant bail
when granting the writ. See Sizemore v. District Court, 735 F. 2d 204, 208 (6th
2

Cir. 1984). By implication, a federal court should not grant bail under other
circumstances. Petitioner failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas relief; he
is not entitled to release on bail. See e.g. Greenup v. Snyder, 57 F. App’x. 620,
621-22 (6th Cir. 2003).
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1). The motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 15] is DENIED.
(2) The motion for appeal bond [Dkt. # 14] is DENIED.
(3) A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: June 12, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
parties/counsel of record on June 12, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Assistant

3