1

 Under the Eastern District of Michigan’s Local Rules, motions for reconsideration must

be filed “within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1). 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is untimely. Moreover, neither Petitioner nor his attorney of

record signed the motion as Rule 11 requires. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Nevertheless, the Court

will not strike the motion because it is frivolous and requiring a signed motion to be refiled

would be a waste of resources. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

RANDY TINCHER,

Petitioner,

v. Case Number 08-14078

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

BLAINE C. LAFLER,

Respondent.

________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE

COURT’S ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DENYING

PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

On June 14, 2011, the Court issued an opinion and order denying Petitioner’s application for

a writ of habeas corpus. Under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings, the Court

“must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order.” Accordingly, in the

opinion and order dismissing the petition, the Court concluded: “It is further ORDERED that a

certificate of appealability is DENIED because reasonable jurists would not debate the Court’s

assessment of Petitioner’s claims nor conclude that the claims deserve encouragement to proceed

further. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).” 

On July 11, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its decision

and grant a certificate of appealability on the first and second claims presented in his petition.1

 A

1:08-cv-14078-TLL-VMM Doc # 16 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1264
-2-

motion for reconsideration will only be granted if it demonstrates both a “palpable defect by which

the court and the parties were misled” and that “correcting the defect will result in a different

disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). Petitioner’s motion does not meet either of

those requirements. As a result, it will be denied.

Petitioner has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The

application is not signed, as required by Rule 11. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Moreover, it does not

include the required affidavit or documentation of Petitioner’s financial wherewithal. Fed. R. App.

P. 24(a). Because Petitioner is currently represented by retained counsel and the application does

not include the required affidavit, the application will be denied. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

order denying a certificate of appealability [Dkt. # 12] is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

[Dkt. # 14] is DENIED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: August 4, 2011

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on August 4, 2011.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:08-cv-14078-TLL-VMM Doc # 16 Filed 08/04/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1265