Chandler v. Terris
OPINION and ORDER denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case Number 2:16-cv-12608
Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner, Nigel Chandler, a federal prisoner, filed this case under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that his conviction and sentence is invalid because
of errors under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), and because
a review of the trial transcripts show that he is actually innocent. On October
13, 2016, the Court summarily dismissed the petition because Petitioner had
not demonstrated that his remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, was ineffective or
inadequate. See Wooten v. Cauley, 677 F. 3d 303, 307 (6th Cir. 2012).
Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment on
the grounds that the savings clause of section 2241 permits review of his
claim on the basis of his alleged actual innocence.
Petitioner's motion is properly analyzed as a motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 of the Eastern District of Michigan. Hence v. Smith,
49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999). Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file
a motion for reconsideration. 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. 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).
Petitioner asserts that the Court failed to afford him a merits review of
his petition despite the fact that he made a claim of actual innocence. This
argument is incorrect. The Court stated in its initial opinion:
In addition to showing that his remedy is inadequate or
ineffective under § 2255–a showing Petitioner has not
made–Petitioner must also show “actual innocence” of the
underling offenses to seek relief under §2241. Martin v. Perez,
319 F.3d 799, 804 (6th Cir. 2003). Actual innocence means
“factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency” and requires the
petitioner to establish that, “in light of all the evidence, it is more
likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted
him.” Id. (quoting Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623
Here, Petitioner makes no showing of actual innocence.
Petitioner has attached portions of his trial transcript purporting to
show that the prosecutor committed various acts of misconduct,
that other errors occurred at trial, and that the evidence was
insufficient to sustain the verdict reached by the jury. Petitioner
simply does not present the Court with new evidence showing that
it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have
convicted him. Rather, he has merely proffered
the Court with excerpts of his trial containing evidence the jury
Dkt. 6, at 4.
Because Petitioner is merely presenting issues which were already ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, the motion
for reconsideration is DENIED. See Hence, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 553.
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: June 8, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
parties/counsel of record on June 8, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
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?