Coleman v. Christiansen

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: August 15, 2019
• Docket: 2:18-cv-12846
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DEON COLEMAN,

Petitioner, Case Number: 18-12846 v. HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD JOHN CHRISTIANSEN,

Respondent. / ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 18) On December 11, 2018, the Court dismissed without prejudice Michigan prisoner Deon Coleman’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 12/11/2018 Op. & Ord. (ECF No. 14). In addition to challenging his parole revocation, Petitioner also raised claims concerning religious (Halal) meals served

at the Detroit Reentry Center. The Court severed and dismissed without prejudice Petitioner’s food-related claims because they were not properly raised in a habeas corpus petition. See id. Now before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion for

Reconsideration or Rehearing” seeking relief from the Court’s order dismissing the petition. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(h), a party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate (i) a “palpable defect” by which the court and the parties have been “misled,” and (ii) that “correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of

the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect” is an error that is “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D. Mich. 2001).

Petitioner fails to identify a “palpable defect” by which the Court was misled. Instead, Petitioner simply asserts the same arguments raised in his petition and disagrees with the Court’s dismissal order. Disagreement with a decision fails

to allege sufficient grounds upon which to grant reconsideration. L.R. 7.1(h)(3); see also Meekison v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio 1998). Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED. s/Denise Page Hood DENISE PAGE HOOD CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: August 15, 2019