Carswell v. Harry, No. 2:2010cv12097 - Document 19 (E.D. Mich. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 17 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CORNELIUS CORNELLE CARSWELL, Petitioner, Case No. 10-12097 Honorable Patrick J. Duggan v. SHIRLEE HARRY, Respondent. __________________________ / OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY On May 25, 2010, Cornelius Cornelle Carswell ( Petitioner ), a Michigan prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Petitioner challenges his 2005 convictions following a bench trial for kidnapping in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.349 and assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.84. In an opinion and order issued on October 4, 2011, the Court concluded that Petitioner s grounds in support of his request for habeas relief lack merit. Presently before the Court is Petitioner s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h), filed October 21, 2011. Rule 7.1(h) provides that a motion for reconsideration only should be granted if the movant demonstrates that the Court and the parties have been misled by a palpable defect and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction of such a palpable defect. Id. A motion that merely presents the same issues already ruled upon by the Court shall not be granted. Id. In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner asserts the same arguments that he raised in his petition for habeas relief to challenge his kidnapping conviction. He fails to demonstrate that this Court committed a palpable defect when it rejected the grounds for relief set forth in that petition. The Court continues to believe that jurists of reason could not disagree with its resolution of Petitioner s claims. It therefore also denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability to the extent he seeks to appeal this decision. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that Petitioner s motion for reconsideration is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability with respect to this Opinion and Order. Date: November 4, 2011 Copies to: Cornelius Cornelle Carswell #586447 Pugsley Correctional Facility 7401 E. Walton Road Kingsley, MI 49649 AAG Laura Moody s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
