Jones v. Winn

Filing 19

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration, denying 16 Motion for Certificate of Appealability, and denying 17 Application to Proceed on Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER M. JONES Petitioner, Civil No. 4:15-cv-12239 Hon. Terrence G. Berg v. THOMAS WINN, Respondent. / ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [dkt. # 15], DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, [dkt. # 16] AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS [dkt. # 17] This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. On October 31, 2016, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying the petition. The Opinion also specifically denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal in forma pauperis. Before the Court are Petitioner’s application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and his application for a certificate of appealability. Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. 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., Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the 1 court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). There is no palpable defect in the Court’s prior order. As the Court already explained, to warrant a grant of a certificate of appealability, “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). Petitioner’s habeas claims do not meet this standard for the reasons explained in the prior opinion. Furthermore, as previously explained, any appeal could not be taken in good faith, so leave to appeal in forma pauperis is again denied. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Petitioner’s pending motions are therefore DENIED. SO ORDERED. s/Terrence G. Berg TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: January 4, 2017 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on January 4, 2017, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party. s/A. Chubb Case Manager 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?