1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHARLES BLUNT, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case Number: 4:08-CV-14808 

 Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith 

MARY BERGHUIS, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S “REASON WHY 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHOULD BE ISSUED” AS MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION, DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND 

GRANTING PETITIONER’S “MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS” 

 Petitioner Charles Blunt filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for bank robbery, two counts of armed robbery, 

felon-in-possession of a firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, second-degree fleeing a police 

officer, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. On April 5, 2011, the 

Court issued an “Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying 

Certificate of Appealability.” Petitioner has filed a pleading titled “Reason Why Certificate of 

Appealability Should Be Issued in Favor of Petitioner Blunt.” Because the Court already has 

denied a certificate of appealability (COA), the Court construes the pleading as requesting 

reconsideration of that denial. Petitioner also has filed a “Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis.” 

 Motions for reconsideration may be granted when the moving party shows (1) a 

“palpable defect,” (2) by which the court and the parties were misled, and (3) the correction of 

which will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable 

4:08-cv-14808-MAG-CEB Doc # 20 Filed 06/13/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 437
2 

defect” is a “defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Olson v. The 

Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004). 

 The Court declined to issue a COA because reasonable jurists could not “debate whether 

(or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner” or 

that the issues presented were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation omitted). Petitioner’s arguments for 

reconsideration amount to a disagreement with the Court’s decision. A motion predicated on 

such an argument is an insufficient ground upon which to grant reconsideration. L.R. 7.1(h)(3); 

see also, Meekison v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. 

Ohio 1998). Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the Court’s decision denying a COA was based 

upon a palpable defect by which the Court was misled. 

 Petitioner also has filed a “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) provides that a party to a district court action who desires to appeal 

in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. An appeal may not be taken in forma 

pauperis if the court determines that it is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “[T]he 

standard governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability is more demanding than the 

standard for determining whether an appeal is in good faith.” U.S. v. Cahill-Masching, 2002 WL 

15701, * 3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2002). “[T]o determine that an appeal is in good faith, a court need 

only find that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has some merit.” Walker v. 

O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir. 2000). Although the Court held that a certificate of 

appealability should not issue, the Court concludes that an appeal in this case may be taken in 

good faith. The Court, therefore, grants Petitioner’s “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Reason Why Certificate of 

4:08-cv-14808-MAG-CEB Doc # 20 Filed 06/13/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 438
3 

Appealability Should Be Issued in Favor of Petitioner Charles Blunt” [Docket Entry 19] is 

construed as a “Motion for Reconsideration” and the “Motion for Reconsideration” is DENIED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” 

[Docket Entry 16] is GRANTED. 

 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: June 13, 2011 

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 13, 2011. 

 s/Deborah J. Goltz 

 DEBORAH J. GOLTZ 

 Case Manager 

4:08-cv-14808-MAG-CEB Doc # 20 Filed 06/13/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 439