UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RAFAEL BOWENS, # 09887-021

Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-10203

v. HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

J.A. TERRIS,

Respondent.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Rafael Bowens, (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner confined at the Federal

Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he challenged from the Bureau of Prisons’

(B.O.P.) determination that he is ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18

U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) for his successful completion of a drug treatment program.

On April 21, 2015, this Court summarily denied petitioner’s application for a writ of

habeas corpus without prejudice on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies and had not persuaded the Court that it would be futile for him

to do so.

Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow,

the Court will deny petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 

U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for

reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration which presents the same

-1-

2:15-cv-10203-GCS-EAS Doc # 10 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 92
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

DirecTV, Inc. v. Karpinsky, 274 F. Supp. 2d 918, 921 (E.D. Mich. 2003).

Petitioner claims in his motion for reconsideration that it would be futile for him to

attempt to exhaust his claims with the B.O.P., because he has new evidence that the

B.O.P. is rejecting claims from other prisoners who argue that the B.O.P.’s blanket

determination that all federal prisoners who have received an enhancement under the

sentencing guidelines for firearms possession are automatically guilty of a violent

offense, so as to exclude them from eligibility for a one year sentence reduction under §

3621(e), violates the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010's mens rea requirement. 

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 summarily dismissed the petition for writ of

habeas corpus on exhaustion grounds.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for a reconsideration [Dkt. # 9]

is DENIED.

Dated: May 28, 2015

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

2:15-cv-10203-GCS-EAS Doc # 10 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 93
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

May 28, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on

Rafael Bowens #09887-021, Milan Federal Correctional

Institution, Inmate Mail/Parcels, P.O. Box 1000,

Milan, MI 48160.

s/Barbara Radke

Deputy Clerk

-3-

2:15-cv-10203-GCS-EAS Doc # 10 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 94