1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TERRY ADAMS, 

 Petitioner, 

 Case No. 15-cv-11209 

v. 

 HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

SHAWN BREWER, 

Respondent.

__________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER

(1) DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Dkt. 24) AND (2) 

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO TRANSFER THE MOTION FOR A 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (Dkt. 24) AND THE MOTION TO 

SUPPLEMENT EXHIBITS (Dkt. 25) TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

 Petitioner Terry Adams filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his 

conviction for carjacking, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529a; and being a fourth felony habitual 

offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.12. On March 29, 2016, the Court denied Petitioner’s 

application for a writ of habeas corpus, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, but 

granted Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Adams v. Brewer, No. 15-CV-11209, 2016 

WL 1223350 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2016). 

Petitioner has now filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals. 

Petitioner has also filed a motion for a certificate of appealability and a related motion to 

supplement exhibits, which this Court will treat in part as a motion for reconsideration of the 

Court’s prior decision to deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability. For the reasons that 

follow, the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The Court will further order 

2:15-cv-11209-MAG-DRG Doc # 26 Filed 06/08/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1156
2

that Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability and the motion to supplement exhibits 

be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Court previously denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability when it denied the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, the Court will construe Petitioner’s motion for a 

certificate of appealability as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order to deny a 

certificate of appealability in this case. See, e.g., Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290, 1294 n. 5 

(11th Cir. 2006). 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(h), 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.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Rather, a party seeking reconsideration 

must demonstrate (i) a “palpable defect” by which the court and the parties have been “misled,” 

and (ii) that “correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” Id. A 

“palpable defect” is an error that is “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” United 

States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 

 Other than conclusory or unsupported allegations, Petitioner has failed to advance any 

arguments in his motion for a certificate of appealability that shows that this Court erred in 

denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus and in declining to issue a certificate of 

appealability. A habeas petitioner’s conclusory assertion that jurists of reason would find his or 

her claims to be debatable is insufficient to warrant the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 

See Babgy v. Saffle, 53 F. App’x 25, 28 (10th Cir. 2002). Therefore, the Court denies 

Petitioner’s request for reconsideration, because Petitioner is merely presenting issues that were 

already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court 

2:15-cv-11209-MAG-DRG Doc # 26 Filed 06/08/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1157
3

denied Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus and denied him a certificate of 

appealability. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999).

The Court further notes that the proper procedure when a district court denies a certificate 

of appealability is for Petitioner to file a motion for a certificate of appealability before the 

appellate court in the appeal from the judgment denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus or 

the motion to vacate sentence. See Sims v. United States, 244 F. 3d 509 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing 

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1)). In light of the fact that this Court has already denied Petitioner a 

certificate of appealability, Petitioner should direct his request for a certificate of appealability to 

the Sixth Circuit. The Court, in the interests of justice, will order that Petitioner’s motion for a 

certificate of appealability and his related motion to supplement exhibits to be transferred to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s 

previous denial of a certificate of appealability (Dkt. 24), and orders the Clerk of the Court to 

transfer Petitioner’s “Motion for A Certificate of Appealability” (Dkt. 24) and his related 

“Motion to Supplement Exhibits” (Dkt. 25) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 8, 2016 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and 

any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 8, 2016. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Case Manager 

2:15-cv-11209-MAG-DRG Doc # 26 Filed 06/08/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1158