Williams v. Cheeks

Filing 19

ORDER Denying 15 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, and 16 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Myron Tyrone Williams,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 21-11569
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge

Chandler Cheeks,
Respondent.

Mag. Judge Patricia T. Morris

________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY [16] AND DENYING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [15]
Petitioner Myron Tyrone Williams filed a pro se petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 4, 2022, the
Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition because it was
untimely. (ECF No. 12.) The Court also declined to issue a certificate of
appealability (COA), and denied Petitioner leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal. (Id.) Now before the Court are Petitioner’s motion for
a COA and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
(ECF Nos. 15, 16.) Because the Court already decided these issues, the
Court construes Petitioner’s motions as requests for reconsideration.

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h) governs motions for
rehearing or reconsideration of non-final orders. Such motions are
“disfavored” and “must be filed within 14 days after entry of the order.”
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). The Court’s opinion was issued on August 4,
2022. Petitioner’s motions were filed 25 days later, on August 29, 2022.1
As such, his requests for reconsideration are untimely.
Even if Petitioner’s requests were timely filed, Petitioner has not
satisfied the substantive requirements for reconsideration. To prevail on
a motion for reconsideration of a non-final order under Eastern District
of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(2), a movant must establish (i) a mistake
by the Court and that “correcting the mistake changes the outcome of the
prior decision,” (ii) an “intervening change in controlling law” that
“warrants a different outcome,” or (iii) new facts that “warrant a different
outcome.” This standard is comparable to the standard for altering or
amending a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See

Under the “prison mailbox rule,” a pro se prisoner’s pleading is deemed filed
when it is handed over to prison officials for mailing to the court. Brand v. Motley,
526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008). Courts assume, “absent contrary evidence,” that an
incarcerated person delivered a legal filing to prison authorities “on the date he or
she signed [it].” Id. Because Petitioner is incarcerated, the Court deems his motions
to be filed on August 29, 2022, the date they were signed.
1

2

Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Schs., 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006)
(stating that “[a] district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or
amend judgment only if” a movant demonstrates that there is “(1) a clear
error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in
controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice” (quoting
Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005))). A mistake
by the Court must be “based on the record and law before the court at the
time of its prior decision.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2)(A). A motion based on
new facts must demonstrate that those facts “could not have been
discovered with reasonable diligence before the prior decision.” Id. at
7.1(h)(2)(C). A party may not use a motion for reconsideration to raise
new legal arguments that could have been raised before the prior decision
was issued. See Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 13 F.4th 493, 503–04 (6th Cir.
2021); Direct Constr. Servs., LLC v. City of Detroit, 820 F. App’x 417, 428
(6th Cir. 2020); Livonia Pub. Schs. v. Selective Ins. Co. of the Se., No. 16cv-10324, 2020 WL 728540, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2020); Roger Miller
Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ’g, 477 F.3d 383, 395 (6th Cir. 2007).
Here, Petitioner’s motion and application satisfy none of the
grounds for reconsideration. The motion does not present any new facts
3

not already included in the petition that would warrant a different
outcome. Nor does Petitioner demonstrate that the Court made a mistake
in its application of Williams v. Birkett, 670 F.3d 729, 733 (6th Cir. 2012),
and McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 386 (2013), to the facts alleged
in the petition or that there has been an intervening change in this
controlling law.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for a
Certificate of Appealability (ECF No. 16) and Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 15).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 19, 2022
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 19, 2022.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager

4