Hills v. United States Marshal Service

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING 9 MOTION for Expedited Judgment, 8 MOTION for Reconsideration, and DENYING, as Moot, 10 MOTION for Expedited Judgment of Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DERRICK L. HILLS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case Number 4:16-cv-11798
Hon. Terrence G. Berg

WARDEN, LORETTO FCI,
Respondent.
_____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXPEDITED JUDGMENT (DKT. 9),
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. 8) AND DENYING, AS MOOT,
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED JUDGMENT OF MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (DKT. 10)
On July 1, 2016, the Court issued an order denying Petitioner’s application
for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 5). Petitioner
has now filed a motion for expedited judgment (Dkt. 9), a motion for reconsideration
(Dkt. 8) and a motion to expedite a ruling on his motion for reconsideration (Dkt.
10). For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny all three motions.
Rule 7.1(g) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. See
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g). Rule 7.1(g)(3) provides that a motion for reconsideration shall
be granted only if the movant can (1) “demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
court and the parties have been misled” and (2) show that “correcting the defect will
result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3). A “palpable
defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain. Mktg.

Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices, Inc., 971 F.Supp. 262, 278 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (citing
Webster's New World Dictionary 974 (3d ed.1988)). 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. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3);
Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assocs., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
Under the local rules, “[a] motion for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days
after entry of the judgment or order.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(1).
In the present case, the arguments raised by Petitioner in his motion for
reconsideration were already raised, either explicitly or by reasonable implication,
in Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is merely presenting
issues which were already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication, when the Court dismissed his petition for writ of habeas
corpus. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F.Supp.2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999). Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for expedited judgment (Dkt. 9), a
motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 8) and a motion to expedite a ruling on his motion
for reconsideration (Dkt. 10) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 31, 2016

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on October 31,
2016, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party, and
sent to unrepresented parties via postal mail.

s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

3