Varner v. Gidley

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR AMENDED OR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN SCOTT VARNER,
Petitioner,

Case No. 16-14388

v.

HON. AVERN COHN

LORI GIDLEY,
Respondent.
_____________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S “MOTION FOR AMENDED OR ADDITIONAL
FINDINGS AND MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT” (Doc. 28).
I.
Kevin Scott Varner, (“Petitioner”), filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for unlawful possession of
controlled substances with intent to deliver and resisting and obstructing a police officer.
On September 7, 2017, the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and
declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 26).
Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion for Amended or Additional Findings and
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.” For the reasons that follow, the motion is
DENIED.
II.
Petitioner essentially seeks reconsideration of the denial of habeas relief. A Rule
52(b) motion to alter or amend fact findings or conclusions of law is essentially a motion
seeking reconsideration of the court’s factual findings and legal conclusions. See e.g.

Shivers v. Grubbs, 747 F. Supp. 434, 436 (S.D. Ohio 1990). A motion to alter or amend
judgment by a Petitioner under Rule 59 (e) may likewise be analyzed as a motion for
reconsideration. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. Under
the rule, a motion for reconsideration may only be granted if the movant demonstrates a
palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that
correcting the defect will lead to a different disposition of the case. However, 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. Ford Motor Co. v.
Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
III.
Petitioner argues he was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth
Amendment claims in the state courts because the trial court failed to adjudicate some
of his Fourth Amendment claims. In denying habeas relief, the Court explained that his
Fourth Amendment claims was not subject to habeas review because Petitioner had a
full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims in state courts, even if
Petitioner disagreed with the review process. Petitioner’s motion presents the same
arguments previously considered and rejected by the Court. As such, he is not entitled
to reconsideration of the denial of his Fourth Amendment claims.
Finally, The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability because
jurists of reason would not find the Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s motion. See e.g.,
Amr v. United States, 280 F. App’x 480, 486 (6th Cir. 2008) (requiring a certificate of
appealability from the denial of a motion for reconsideration).
2

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 10/13/2017
Detroit, Michigan

3