Smith v. Haas, No. 2:2014cv11540 - Document 19 (E.D. Mich. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 18 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; denying 18 Motion for Leave to Appeal; denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

Download PDF
Smith v. Haas Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KEVIN SMITH, Petitioner, Civil No. 2:14-11540 HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE v. RANDALL HAAS, Respondent. ___________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On October 19, 2015, this Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus that had been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court also denied petitioner a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Smith v. Haas, No. 2:14-CV-11540, 2015 WL 5697634 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2015). Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. In order for a court to grant a motion for reconsideration, the movant must show (1) a palpable defect; (2) that misled the court and the parties; and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. Sigma Financial Corp. v. American Intern. Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 200 F. Supp. 2d 710, 715 (E.D. Mich. 2002). A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is considered “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Id. As a general rule, a court will not grant a motion for rehearing or reconsideration that merely presents the same issues ruled 1 Dockets.Justia.com upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. Id. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied. 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 habeas application and declined to issue a certificate of appealability or leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 18] is DENIED. SO ORDERED. s/Paul D. Borman PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: October 26, 2015 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on October 26, 2015. s/Deborah Tofil 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.