Konesko v. Trombley
ORDER denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
LEON W. KONESKO, # 486843,
Case Number: 06-cv-15675
Honorable John Corbett O’Meara
JAN E. TROMBLEY,
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This is a habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 21, 2006, Petitioner
Leon W. Konesko, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Ionia Maximum Correctional
Facility in Ionia, Michigan, filed a Habeas Petition challenging his convictions for assault with
intent to rob while armed, first-degree home invasion, larceny in a building, and two counts of
felony firearm. On February 6, 2008, the Court denied Petitioner’s Habeas Petition, finding his
claims to be without merit. Konesko v. Trombley, No. 06-15675, 2008 WL 324117 (E.D. Mich.
Feb. 6, 2008). Three years later, Petitioner filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), alleging that the Clerk of the Court failed to serve him
with a copy of the Court’s Opinion and Order. On March 24, 2011, the Court denied the Motion
because the docket reflected that a copy was sent to Petitioner on February 6, 2008.
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s denial
of his Motion for Relief from Judgment. The Motion was filed with the Court on April 25, 2011.
Petitioner signed and dated the Motion on April 15, 2011.
A motion for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days after entry
of the Court’s Judgment or Order. See E.D.Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). The Court finds that
Petitioner’s Motion is untimely; the Motion was filed almost twenty-one days after entry of the
Court’s Order denying his Motion for Relief from Judgment.
However, even the Court found that Petitioner’s Motion was timely, the Court finds that
Petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements for reconsideration. He has not shown “a
palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard have
been misled” or shown “that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the
case.” E.D.Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Additionally, a motion for reconsideration which presents
issues already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be
granted. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F.Supp.2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall &
Assoc., P.C., 967 F.Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
Petitioner has not met his burden of showing a palpable defect by which the Court has
been misled or his burden of showing that a different disposition must result, as required by
Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). Moreover, for the reasons stated in the Court’s March 24, 2011 Order,
Petitioner is not entitled to relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. # 14).
This case is closed.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: May 12, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on this date, May 12, 2011, using the ECF system and upon Petitioner at Ionia Maximum
Correctional Facility, 1576 W. Bluewater Highway, Ionia, MI 48846 by first-class U.S. mail.
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?