Demetrius Montgomery v. Terry Wilkins

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: March 2, 2026
• Docket: 2:22-cv-11759
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEMETRIUS MONTGOMERY,

Petitioner, Case Number: 22-cv-11759 Honorable F. Kay Behm v.

TERRY WILKINS,

Respondent. /

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION Pending before the Court are two motions for reconsideration filed by Petitioner Demetrius Montgomery.1 (See Mot., ECF Nos. 31, 32.) On May 2, 2025, Montgomery filed a motion to extend or reopen the time to file an appeal. (See Mot., ECF No. 25.) The Court denied the motion. (See Order, ECF No. 27.) Montgomery now asks the Court to reconsider its decision. Motions for reconsideration in this Court are governed by Local Rule 7.1(h). Such a motion may be brought only upon the following grounds: (A) The court made a mistake, correcting the mistake changes the outcome of the prior decision, and the mistake was based on the record and law before the court at the time of its prior decision;

1 The second-filed motion for relief from judgment is a duplicate of the first and will be denied as moot. (B) An intervening change in controlling law warrants a different outcome; or

(C) New facts warrant a different outcome and the new facts could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the prior decision.” Id.

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h).

The Court denied Montgomery’s motion to reopen the time for appeal because the motion was not timely filed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Montgomery contends that reconsideration is warranted because he diligently attempted to timely file the motion and that the failure to do so is attributable to the correctional facility’s procedures rather than to him. The Court “has no authority to consider a motion which is not filed within Rule 4(a)(6)’s time constraints” even if the reasons offered by a late filer “qualify as excusable neglect.” Martin v. Straub, 27 F. App’x 337, 338 (6th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Montgomery’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 31) because he has not established entitlement to relief under any of the three grounds for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1(h)(2). The Court DENIES Montgomery’s duplicative Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 32) as moot. SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2026 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge