UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

COLLIN D. PITTMAN, 

 Petitioner, 

v. Civil Case No. 14-14405 

Honorable Linda V. Parker 

STEVE RIVARD, 

 Respondent. 

____________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

I. Introduction

 This matter initially came before the Court on Petitioner Collin D. Pittman’s 

pro se habeas corpus petition challenging his state convictions for two counts of 

criminal sexual conduct involving his niece. Petitioner raised twelve claims 

regarding his arrest, the deadline for trying him, the admission of certain evidence 

at trial, the prosecutor’s conduct, the trial court’s rulings and jury instructions, his 

trial and appellate counsel’s assistance, his sentence, and newly discovered 

evidence that his niece had recanted her accusations about him. On February 6, 

2018, the Court denied the petition on the merits, declined to issue a certificate of 

appealability, and granted Petitioner permission to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal. (ECF No. 22.) 
2

 The Court subsequently received a letter from Petitioner, in which he 

requests reconsideration of the decision denying his application for habeas relief 

and to allow the complainant and another prosecution witness to answer questions 

about the content of their conversation in a juvenile facility. Petitioner’s letter has 

been filed as a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 24.) 

II. Discussion

A. Legal Framework

 In this District, motions for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen 

days after entry of the judgment or order under reconsideration. E.D. Mich. LR 

7.1(h)(1). Additionally, 

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 reasonable implication. The movant must not only 

demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties and 

other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but 

also show that correcting the defect will result in a different 

disposition of the case. 

LR 7.1(h)(3); see also Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011) 

(noting that this District’s local rules prohibit “merely presenting the same issues 

that the court previously ruled on” and that “the movant must show both that there 

is a palpable defect in the opinion and that correcting the defect will result in a 

different disposition of the case”). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is 

obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys Health 
3

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)). 

B. Application

 The Court issued its dispositive opinion and judgment in this case on 

February 6, 2018. (ECF No. Dkt. 22.) The deadline for filing a motion for 

reconsideration was fourteen days later on February 20, 2018. Petitioner’s motion 

for reconsideration is undated, but it was post-marked on February 28, 2018, and 

filed on March 12, 2018. The motion, therefore, is untimely. 

 Moreover, the motion lacks merit. Petitioner fails to identify a palpable 

defect in the Court’s decision. Instead, he asks the Court to provide him with its 

understanding of the facts in his criminal case. Essentially Petitioner is asking the 

Court to accept various facts that he asserts undermine his conviction. As a federal 

habeas court, however, this Court does not sit as a fact-finder. The writ of habeas 

corpus “has limited scope; the federal courts do not sit to re-try state cases de novo 

but, rather, to review for violation of federal constitutional standards.” Milton v. 

Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 377 (1972). 

 To the extent Petitioner is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence at his 

trial, he is presenting one of the same issues the Court ruled on in its dispositive 

decision. There, the Court concluded that the state court’s rejection of Petitioner’s 

claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Jackson v. 
4

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). The Court is not required to “ask itself whether it

believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Id. at 318 (emphasis in original). The Court also is not required to reweigh the 

evidence, re-determine the credibility of witness, weigh the probative value of the 

evidence, or resolve any conflicts in the testimony. Matthews v. Abramajtys, 319 

F.3d 780, 788 (6th Cir. 2003). 

Petitioner’s request to have the complainant and another prosecution witness 

provide details about their conversation in a juvenile facility is inappropriate 

because this case is closed. In addition, the Court’s review of habeas cases 

generally is limited to the record that was before the state court. Cullen v. 

Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011). 

III. Conclusion and Order

 In summary, Petitioner’s motion is untimely and fails to demonstrate a 

palpable defect in the Court’s decision to deny him habeas relief. To the extent 

Petitioner seeks to appeal this decision and requires a certificate of appealability to 

do so, the Court declines to issue one. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 24) 
5

is DENIED and the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 20, 2018 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, September 20, 2018, by electronic and/or 

U.S. First Class mail. 

 s/ R. Loury 

 Case Manager