Jones v. MacLaren

Filing 19

OPINION AND ORDER Denying 18 Petitioner's Motion to Amend Judgment. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Chubb, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
PATRICK JONES,
Petitioner,
Case No. 13-12645
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
HON. PAUL J. KOMIVES

v.
RANDY HAAS,
Respondent.
____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND
JUDGMENT (DKT. 18)
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Patrick Jones’ (“Petitioner’s”)
motion to amend judgment filed on January 9, 2015, (Dkt. 18). Petitioner seeks to
have the Court amend its order adopting Magistrate Judge Komives’ Report and
Recommendation and denying Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.
“A motion to alter or amend judgment brought by a habeas petitioner
pursuant to Rule 59(e) may properly be analyzed as a motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 of the Eastern District of Michigan.” Hughes v. Napels,
No. 2:12-CV-11385, 2013 WL 450090, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 6, 2013).
Under E.D. of Mich. L.R. 7.1(h), a Court
will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that
merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only
demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties
and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been
misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a
different disposition of the case.

Thus, motions for reconsideration that merely present the same issues already
ruled upon are denied. Hughes, No. 2:12-CV-11385, 2013 WL 450090, at *1.
Here, Plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment presents the same issues already
ruled upon by this Court. Petitioner merely restates his argument that there was
insufficient probable cause for a charge of assault with intent to rob while armed.
The Court has already considered this argument and held that there was sufficient
probable cause to charge Petitioner with assault with intent to rob while armed.
The order, in pertinent part, states:
In the July 9, 2008, evidentiary hearing, a victim testified that
Petitioner pushed Red Lobster employee Bill Stanley into a cash
stand. (Dkt. 10, Attachment 2.) The victim also testified that she
believed that Petitioner’s co-defendant had a weapon because she
saw him reach under his coat into his waistband. (Id.) Moreover,
a gun was recovered following a high-speed chase with police.
(Trial Ct. Op. at p. 5.) Based on this evidence, this Court sustains
Magistrate Judge Komives’ finding that the charge of assault
with intent to rob while armed was supported by probable cause.
See People v. Justice, 454 Mich. 334, 344 (1997) (“Probable cause
signifies evidence sufficient to cause a person of ordinary
prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable
belief of the accused’s guilt.”).
(Dkt. 16 at p. 4).
//
//
//
//
//
//

2

Given that the Court has already considered Petitioner’s arguments,
pursuant to E.D. of Mich. L.R. 7.1(h), the Court will DENY Petitioner’s
motion to amend the judgment as it merely restates arguments already
ruled upon.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2015

s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on February 17,
2015, using the CM/ECF system; a copy of this Order was also addressed to
Petitioner’s attention and mailed to 223965, G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility,
3500 N. Elm Road, Jackson, MI 49201.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

3