From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cristini v. Woods

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 29, 2012
Civil No. 01-CV- 74483-DT (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2012)

Opinion

Civil No. 01-CV- 74483-DT

03-29-2012

JAMES CRAIG CRISTINI, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY WOODS, Respondent.


HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On February 29, 2012, this Court denied petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, denied petitioner a certificate of appealability, and granted petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Cristini v. Woods, No. 2012 WL 666229 (E.D. Mich. February 29, 2012). Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons stated below, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) provides that 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 upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. Id. (citing E.D. MICH. L.R. 7.1(g)(3)).

Petitioner merely advances the same arguments in his motion for reconsideration that he raised in his petition for writ of habeas corpus and other pleadings. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration will be denied, because petitioner is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and denied petitioner a certificate of appealability. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999).

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 161] is DENIED.

____________________________

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon James Cristini #244014, 16770 S. Watertower Drive, Kincheloe, MI 49788 and counsel of record on March 29, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

LaShawn R. Saulsberry

Case Manager


Summaries of

Cristini v. Woods

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 29, 2012
Civil No. 01-CV- 74483-DT (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2012)
Case details for

Cristini v. Woods

Case Details

Full title:JAMES CRAIG CRISTINI, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY WOODS, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Mar 29, 2012

Citations

Civil No. 01-CV- 74483-DT (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2012)