Crump v. BURT

Filing 23

ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 19 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

Case 2:16-cv-13381-DPH-PTM ECF No. 23 filed 04/17/20

PageID.1688

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM CRUMP,
Case Number: 2:16-CV-13381
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

Petitioner,
v.
SHERRY BURT,
Respondent.
/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 19)
Michigan state prisoner William Crump filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He raised two claims: (i) he received ineffective
assistance of counsel because his defense attorney failed to convey the
prosecution’s final plea offer; and (ii) he was handcuffed during his trial. On
September 25, 2019, the Court denied the petition and denied a certificate of
appealability. (ECF No. 17.) Now before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.
Motions for rehearing or 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

Case 2:16-cv-13381-DPH-PTM ECF No. 23 filed 04/17/20

PageID.1689

Page 2 of 3

obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F.
Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004). 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. L.R. 7.1(h); Streater v.
Cox, 336 F. App’x 470, 477 (6th Cir. 2009).
Crump fails to show that the Court’s decision was based upon a palpable
defect. Instead, he raises the same arguments already considered and denied. His
arguments for reconsideration concern the state court’s factual findings that
counsel communicated the plea offer to Crump and that Crump’s handcuffs were
not visible to the jury. The Court held that Crump failed to rebut these factual
findings with clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Crump
fails to show that the Court’s decision denying habeas corpus relief and a
certificate of appealability was based upon a palpable defect.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF
No. 19) is DENIED.
s/Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: April 17, 2020

2

Case 2:16-cv-13381-DPH-PTM ECF No. 23 filed 04/17/20

PageID.1690

Page 3 of 3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
April 17, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3