Perkins v. Hoffner

Filing 10

OPINION and ORDER Denying Petitioner's 8 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (TMcg)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION FREDERICK PERKINS, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 17-CV-12413 v. HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN BONITA HOFFNER, Respondent. ___________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 2, 2017, Opinion and Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Stay [docket entry 8]. Respondent has not responded. But because the Court can decide this motion without a response, pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2), the Court shall now decide it without a hearing. In its August 2017 order, the Court reasoned: “Petitioner has not disclosed what claims he is raising in [his post-conviction] proceeding, and so he has not demonstrated that the claims are not ‘plainly meritless’ under Rhines. In short, petitioner’s motion does not contain enough information to state a sufficient basis for staying the case.” Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration does not at all remedy this defect. The Court has not been shown that its original order erred. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is denied. s/Bernard A. Friedman BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: September 13, 2017 Detroit, Michigan CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S Mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic filing on September 13, 2017. s/Teresa McGovern Case Manager Generalist 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?