-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

THOMAS HORACE LAPPIN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

KENNETH ROMANOWSKI,

Respondent. 

 /

Case No. 14-cv-14368 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DAVID R. GRAND

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR 

RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FROM 

THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION

On August 31, 2016, this Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus 

and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Lappin v. Romanowski, No. 

14-CV-14368, 2016 WL 4537829 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 31, 2016). Petitioner filed a 

motion for rehearing and/or a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 59 and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(g) on September 

14, 2016. Dkt. No. 9. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED. 

 A motion to alter or amend judgment brought by a habeas petitioner pursuant 

to Rule 59(e) may properly be analyzed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to 

Local Rule 7.1 of the Eastern District of Michigan. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 

2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999). Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h) 

2:14-cv-14368-GAD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 789
-2- 

allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. However, a motion for 

reconsideration that presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either 

expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v. 

Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). A motion for 

reconsideration should be granted if the movant demonstrates a palpable defect by 

which the court and the parties have been misled and show that correcting the defect 

will lead to a different disposition of the case. See e.g., Taylor v. DaimlerChrysler 

AG, 313 F. Supp. 2d 703, 706 (E.D. Mich. 2004); aff’d 124 F. App’x. 661 (6th Cir. 

2005). 

 Petitioner claims in his motion that this Court failed to discuss certain facts 

and information in support of his petition and failed to address certain cases cited to 

by petitioner in his habeas petition. Petitioner, however, is basically rehashing the 

same arguments that he made in his original habeas petition and which this Court 

considered, and rejected, when denying petitioner habeas relief. 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 petitioner’s habeas application and declined to 

issue a certificate of appealability. Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 553. 

2:14-cv-14368-GAD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 790
-3- 

 A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a motion for 

reconsideration in a habeas case. See e.g., Amr v. U.S., 280 F. App’x. 480, 486 (6th 

Cir. 2008) (noting that appellate review of a petitioner’s § 2255 motion is limited to 

those issues specified in the certificate of appealability). This Court will deny 

petitioner a certificate of appealability, because jurists of reason would not find this 

Court’s resolution of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration to be debatable. 

ORDER

 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Rehearing and/or Motion for 

Reconsideration, Dkt. No. 9. 

 The Court further DENIES a certificate of appealability. 

Dated: October 31, 2016 

 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge

2:14-cv-14368-GAD-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 791