UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES STEVENS, 

Petitioner, Case No. 14-13513

HON. AVERN COHN

PAUL KLEE,

Respondent.

 /

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 14)

I. Introduction

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 which is closed. Petitioner, a

state prisoner, challenged his convictions of assault with intent to commit murder and

first-degree home invasion. He raised a claim challenging the voluntariness of his plea

and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. In November of 2015, the Court denied

the petition for lack of merit and also denied a certificate of appealabililty. (Doc. 8). In

2016, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the case so the Court may consider his motion

for relief from judgment. (Doc. 10). The Court granted the motion to reopen, 

considered Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment, and denied the motion for lack

of merit. (Doc. 12). 

Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his

motion for relief from judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

2:14-cv-13513-AC-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 07/19/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 707
II. Legal Standard

Petitioner cites Rule 50(e) as a basis for his motion. The disposition of a motion

filed under Rule 59(e) is “entrusted to the court’s sound discretion.” Keweenaw Bay

Indian Community v. United States, 940 F. Supp. 1139, 1140 (W.D. Mich. 1996), citing

Huff v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir. 1982). Generally, a court

may grant a Rule 59(e) motion in one of three situations: (1) to correct a clear error of

law; (2) to account for newly discovered evidence; (3) to accommodate an intervening

change in controlling law; or (4) to prevent manifest injustice. Intera Corp. v.

Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005). However, a motion filed under 59(e)

“‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence

that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v.

Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008), quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice

and Procedure § 2810.1 pp. 127-128 (2d ed. 1995). “A motion to alter or reconsider a

judgment is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly.” Plaskon Elec.

Materials, Inc. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 644, 669 (N.D. Ohio 1995).

Petitioner also requests reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his motion

for relief from judgment. As such, his motion may also be construed as a motion as a

motion for reconsideration under E.D. Mich LR 7.1(g), which provides in relevant part:

Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, the court will not grant

motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues

ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by implication. The movant must not

only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been

misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition

of the case.

2

2:14-cv-13513-AC-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 07/19/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 708
III. Discussion

Petitioner has not satisfied the standard fo relief under either Rule 50(e) or Local

Rule 7.1(g). To the extent Petitioner’s motion presents the same arguments previously

considered and rejected by the Court in denying the petition and denying the motion for

relief from judgment he is not entitled to relief. To the extent Petitioner asks the Court to

stay proceedings on his petition so that he can exhaust state court remedies, such a

request is improper. The Court denied the petition and closed the case. There are no

proceedings pending to stay. 

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 19, 2016

Detroit, Michigan

3

2:14-cv-13513-AC-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 07/19/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 709