UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ANDRE DUVOR STRINGER, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 14-cv-13874 

 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

 JEFFREY WOODS, 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 Respondent R. STEVEN WHALEN

__________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [16] AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING [17] AS MOOT

I. INTRODUCTION

 Andre Duvor Stringer (“Petitioner”) commenced this action on October 7, 2014, pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [1], Petitioner raised six claims 

for relief. On May 27, 2015, Petitioner voluntarily dismissed five of the six claims. See Dkt. No. 

13. On November 24, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See

Dkt. No. 14. 

 Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration [16], filed on 

December 5, 2015. For the reasons discussed herein, the Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED, and 

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing [17] is DENIED as MOOT. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

 Under this Court’s Local Rules, the Court may not grant a motion for reconsideration 

which merely presents the same issues that the Court already ruled on. LR 7.1(h)(3)(E.D. Mich. 

July 1, 2013). Additionally, the movant must demonstrate that there is a palpable defect in the 

2:14-cv-13874-GAD-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 01/27/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1099
2 

opinion or order under attack and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of 

the case. Id.; Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a 

defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys Health 

Systems, 704 F. Supp. 2d 688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines 

Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp. 2d 714, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2001)). 

III. DISCUSSION

 Here, Petitioner contends that this Court was “unable to make a clear determination on 

whether or not counsel was ineffective” because petitioner was unable to furnish “the much 

needed” witness statements that Defendant believes contained exculpatory evidence. Dkt. No. 16 

at 1. Petitioner argues that the Court was “misled by the information,” and requests an 

evidentiary hearing to remedy the Court’s confusion. Id. at 2. Petitioner argues that because the 

witnesses have exculpatory information, his counsel’s failure to call them at trial constituted 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. 

Petitioner has failed to point to a palpable defect in the Court’s opinion. Instead, 

Petitioner has rehashed the same arguments that were used in the original petition. The state trial 

court already ruled that “there is simply no factual basis in the record to conclude that the 

proposed witnesses would have provided testimony favorable to defendant.” People v. Stringer, 

No. 310228, 2013 WL 4005911, *6 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug 6, 2013). Furthermore, this Court held 

in its prior ruling that without the factual basis for the claim, that Plaintiff was unable to prove 

that his counsel’s choice to not call certain witnesses was unreasonable. See Dkt. No. 14 at 8. 

Petitioner requests again that this Court review the statements of Marshall Johnson and 

Parris Collins. However, as this Court has already stated, because these affidavits were not 

presented to the state courts, this Court is “categorically barred by Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. 

2:14-cv-13874-GAD-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 01/27/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1100
3 

Ct. 1388, 1400 n.7 (2011)” from considering them on habeas review. Shoemaker v. Jones, 600 F. 

App’x 979, 983 (6th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). 

III. CONCLUSION

 Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Court made a palpable error in its Opinion 

and Order dismissing his habeas petition. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Request for Reconsideration 

of the Court’s Decision to Dismiss [13] is DENIED. The Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing is 

denied as MOOT. 

 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

Dated: January 27, 2016 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

 United States District Judge

2:14-cv-13874-GAD-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 01/27/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1101