UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LORING WALKER,

Petitioner, 

v.

LORI GIDLEY,

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 2:14-CV-13337

HON. SEAN F. COX

ORDER CONSTRUING 5/27/15 LETTER AS MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING MOTION

Petitioner Loring Walker is a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Oaks

Correctional Facility in Manistee, Michigan. He filed a pro se petition for a writ of

habeas corpus claiming that he is incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. 

The Court issued an Order to Correct Deficiency because Petitioner failed to submit two

copies of his petition as required by Rule 3(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The

Court required Petitioner to correct the deficiency within twenty-one days and cautioned

that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the petition. The Court subsequently

dismissed the petition without prejudiced because Petitioner failed to correct the

deficiency within the time prescribed. Petitioner then filed a letter dated January 13,

2015, arguing that the matter should be reopened because he submitted the required

copies with his original petition. The Court construed the letter as a motion to reopen the

proceeding, and denied the motion. See 2/20/15 Order, ECF No. 10. Petitioner has filed

2:14-cv-13337-SFC-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 10/23/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 543
another letter, dated May 27, 2015, in which he again argues that the habeas proceeding

should be reopened. See ECF No. 11. The Court construes this letter as a motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Petitioner’s request reopen this proceeding.1

 

Motions for reconsideration may be granted when the moving party shows (1) a

“palpable defect,” (2) by which the court and the parties were misled, and (3) the

correction of which will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R.

7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect” is a “defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable,

manifest or plain.” Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich.

2004). The Court denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen because Petitioner had notice of

the filing deficiency prior to the Court’s dismissal of his petition and failed to cure the

deficiency. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is based upon disagreement with the

Court’s decision. A motion predicated upon such argument 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). Petitioner

fails to demonstrate that the Court’s decision denying his motion to reopen was based

upon a palpable defect by which the Court was misled and the Court will deny the

motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s May 27, 2015 letter, ECF No. 11,

1

 Petitioner also filed a letter dated July 23, 2015, inquiring into the status of his

case. The instant Order should answer Petitioner’s inquiry. This matter was closed on

November 12, 2014, and remains closed. 

2

2:14-cv-13337-SFC-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 10/23/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 544
is construed as a motion for reconsideration and the motion is DENIED. 

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: October 23, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

October 23, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager

3

2:14-cv-13337-SFC-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 10/23/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 545