Lee v. Horton

Filing 17

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Presiding District Judge Paul D. Borman for District Judge Avern Cohn (MVer)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRIAN CHRISTOPHER LEE, Petitioner, Case No. 18-cv-10991 HON. AVERN COHN CONNIE HORTON, Respondent. / ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No.16) I. This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was recently reopened upon Petitioner’s exhaustion of administrative remedies. (ECF No. 15). In the order reopening the case, the Court denied Petitioner’s request for expedited review, finding that the case should proceed in the normal course, including requiring a response to the petition. See id. Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of expedited review. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. II. Petitioner expresses concern that the Court did not apprehend the strength of his claims, justifying immediate relief. The Court has already explained, however, that expedited review is not necessary in part because in addition to the convictions challenged in the current case, Petitioner is also serving long sentences for two murder convictions that are being challenged in a separate habeas proceeding. Nothing in Petitioner’s motion convinces the Court that it erred in denying expedited review. Accordingly, the Court has not been misled by any palpable defect justifying a different disposition of Petitioner’s motions for more a speedier resolution of his petition. Reconsideration is not warranted. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Petitioner’s motion is DENIED. SO ORDERED. ________________________________ S/Paul D. Borman Presiding U.S. District Judge for Avern Cohn U.S. District Judge Dated: 12/20/2019 Detroit, Michigan -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?