Ikharo v. DeWine

Filing 36

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 3/7/14. (kn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

MUSA IKHARO,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 2:12-cv-489
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

ATTORNEY GENERAL
MIKE DEWINE,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s February 24, 2014 Order denying Petitioner’s request for a
certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 35.) For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the
motion.
As explained in its February 24, 2014 Order denying Petitioner’s request for a certificate
of appealability, the Court ruled on July 22, 2013 that Petitioner’s claim must be dismissed.
(ECF No. 28.) In the July 22, 2013 Order, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 23) recommending that this case be dismissed because it is
time-barred and because Petitioner was no longer “in custody” at the time he filed his petition.
(Id.) Petitioner filed objections to the R&R (ECF No. 25), which the Court considered and
ultimately rejected.
Typically, a court will consider a motion for reconsideration if there exists: (1) an
intervening change of controlling law, (2) new evidence available, or (3) a need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice. Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F.

App’x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F. Supp. 955, 965 (N.D.
Ohio 1998)). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, which asserts that this case is not timebarred, does not raise any new grounds that would warrant reconsideration of the Court’s July
22, 2013 Order adopting the R&R or the Court’s February 24, 2012 Order denying Petitioner’s
request for a certificate of appealability. Moreover, Petitioner’s motion does not even address
the second ground on which the Court ruled that dismissal is proper: that Petitioner was not “in
custody” at the time he filed his petition.
Reconsideration is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying Petitioner’s request for a
certificate of appealability (ECF No. 35).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Gregory L. Frost______________
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE