Armstrong v. The People of the State of Michigan

Filing 17

ORDER denying 14 15 Motion for reconsideration and objections. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ALLEN DEAN ARMSTRONG, #222965, Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:16-CV-13449 HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS v. SHERMAN CAMPBELL, Respondent. / ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND OBJECTIONS [Dkts. #14 and 15] This matter is before the Court on habeas petitioner Allen Dean Armstrong’s motion for reconsideration and objections concerning the Court's dismissal of his habeas petition for failure to comply with the one-year statute of limitations application to federal habeas actions. The Court also denied a certificate of appealability and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. A motion for reconsideration which presents issues already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Petitioner raises just such issues in his motion and objections. Petitioner has also not met his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). The Court properly dismissed the petition as untimely and properly denied a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and his objections. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Nancy G. Edmunds NANCY G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: December 13, 2016 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon the parties and/or Counsel of record on this 13th day of December, 2016 by regular U.S. Mail and/or CM/ECF. s/ Carol J Bethel Case Manager 2

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?