Pittman v. Bauman
Filing
25
OPINION and ORDER Denying Petitioner's 24 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COLLIN D. PITTMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Case No. 14-14405
Honorable Linda V. Parker
STEVE RIVARD,
Respondent.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
I.
Introduction
This matter initially came before the Court on Petitioner Collin D. Pittman’s
pro se habeas corpus petition challenging his state convictions for two counts of
criminal sexual conduct involving his niece. Petitioner raised twelve claims
regarding his arrest, the deadline for trying him, the admission of certain evidence
at trial, the prosecutor’s conduct, the trial court’s rulings and jury instructions, his
trial and appellate counsel’s assistance, his sentence, and newly discovered
evidence that his niece had recanted her accusations about him. On February 6,
2018, the Court denied the petition on the merits, declined to issue a certificate of
appealability, and granted Petitioner permission to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal. (ECF No. 22.)
The Court subsequently received a letter from Petitioner, in which he
requests reconsideration of the decision denying his application for habeas relief
and to allow the complainant and another prosecution witness to answer questions
about the content of their conversation in a juvenile facility. Petitioner’s letter has
been filed as a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 24.)
II.
A.
Discussion
Legal Framework
In this District, motions for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen
days after entry of the judgment or order under reconsideration. E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(h)(1). Additionally,
the 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.
LR 7.1(h)(3); see also Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011)
(noting that this District’s local rules prohibit “merely presenting the same issues
that the court previously ruled on” and that “the movant must show both that there
is a palpable defect in the opinion and that correcting the defect will result in a
different disposition of the case”). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is
obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys Health
2
Systems, 704 F. Supp.2d 688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul
Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp. 2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001)).
B.
Application
The Court issued its dispositive opinion and judgment in this case on
February 6, 2018. (ECF No. Dkt. 22.) The deadline for filing a motion for
reconsideration was fourteen days later on February 20, 2018. Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration is undated, but it was post-marked on February 28, 2018, and
filed on March 12, 2018. The motion, therefore, is untimely.
Moreover, the motion lacks merit. Petitioner fails to identify a palpable
defect in the Court’s decision. Instead, he asks the Court to provide him with its
understanding of the facts in his criminal case. Essentially Petitioner is asking the
Court to accept various facts that he asserts undermine his conviction. As a federal
habeas court, however, this Court does not sit as a fact-finder. The writ of habeas
corpus “has limited scope; the federal courts do not sit to re-try state cases de novo
but, rather, to review for violation of federal constitutional standards.” Milton v.
Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 377 (1972).
To the extent Petitioner is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence at his
trial, he is presenting one of the same issues the Court ruled on in its dispositive
decision. There, the Court concluded that the state court’s rejection of Petitioner’s
claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Jackson v.
3
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). The Court is not required to “ask itself whether it
believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id. at 318 (emphasis in original). The Court also is not required to reweigh the
evidence, re-determine the credibility of witness, weigh the probative value of the
evidence, or resolve any conflicts in the testimony. Matthews v. Abramajtys, 319
F.3d 780, 788 (6th Cir. 2003).
Petitioner’s request to have the complainant and another prosecution witness
provide details about their conversation in a juvenile facility is inappropriate
because this case is closed. In addition, the Court’s review of habeas cases
generally is limited to the record that was before the state court. Cullen v.
Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011).
III.
Conclusion and Order
In summary, Petitioner’s motion is untimely and fails to demonstrate a
palpable defect in the Court’s decision to deny him habeas relief. To the extent
Petitioner seeks to appeal this decision and requires a certificate of appealability to
do so, the Court declines to issue one.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 24)
4
is DENIED and the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 20, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, September 20, 2018, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager
5
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?