Armstrong v. The People of the State of Michigan
ORDER denying 20 Motion for federal habeas corpus. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ALLEN DEAN ARMSTRONG, #222965,
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-13449
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS [Dkt. #20]
This matter is before the Court on habeas petitioner Allen Dean Armstrong’s second
post-judgment motion 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. The Court has previously denied his motion for reconsideration and
objections. While the instant pleading is somewhat difficult to follow, it appears that
Petitioner is again seeking reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of his petition.
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 such issues in his motion. 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 habeas 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. No further
pleadings should be filed in this matter. This case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 13, 2017
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?