Quatrine v. Berghuis, No. 2:2010cv11603 - Document 27 (E.D. Mich. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Denying the Motion for Reconsideration 26 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHARLES QUATRINE, Jr., Petitioner, v. Civil No. 2:10-CV-11603 HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent, ____________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On October 23, 2012, this Court denied petitioner s motions for appointment of counsel and for release on bail. Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED. U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 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. Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters v. Holcroft L.L.C. 195 F. Supp. 2d 908, 911 (E.D. Mich. 2002)(citing to U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (g)(3)). A motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant demonstrates a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. Id. A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, 1 unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner essentially raises the same arguments that he raised in his prior motions for the appointment of counsel and for release on bond and which were considered by the Court when denying petitioner s motions. The Court will deny petitioner s motion for reconsideration, because petitioner is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court denied petitioner s motions for the appointment of counsel and for release on bond. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999). Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 26] is DENIED. S/Denise Page Hood Denise Page Hood United States District Judge Dated: November 29, 2012 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon Charles Quatrine #605639, 2500 S. Sheridan Drive, Muskegon Heights, MI 49444 and counsel of record on November 29, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry Case Manager 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
