UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

ARTHUR BRIDGES, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

BLAINE LAFLER, 

 Respondent. 

 / 

Case Number: 1:09-cv-11665 

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an opinion and order denying Bridges’ petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 38. Bridges claims that he did not receive notice of the 

judgment until sometime after April 20, 2017, well beyond the deadline for filing a notice of appeal 

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1). On May 5, 2017, Bridges filed a motion to 

reopen the time for filing a notice of appeal. ECF No. 44. The Court denied the motion because it 

was not filed within the time constraints set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). 

ECF No. 45. Bridges now seeks reconsideration of that order on the ground that the Court should 

have provided equitable relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). 

 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(h), 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.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). 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). Bridges argues that, while the Court was precluded 

from reopening the time for filing an appeal under Rule 4(a)(6), the Court should have provided 
‐ 2 ‐ 

relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Rule 60(b)(6) permits a district court to “relieve a party . . . from a final 

judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . any . . . reason that justifies relief,” other than the specific 

grounds listed in Rule 60(a)(1)-(5). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). 

 “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). But, the Sixth Court of Appeals has held that the time 

limits for filing a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a) do not “deprive the 

district court of jurisdiction to vacate and reinstate” the denial of a habeas petition where equitable 

relief is appropriate under Rule 60(b). Tanner v. Yukins, 776 F.3d 434, 439 (6th Cir. 2015), 

rehearing en banc den. (Apr. 14, 2015). In Tanner, the Sixth Circuit found extraordinary 

circumstances warranted granting the petitioner relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Tanner, who was 

functionally illiterate, sought assistance from a prison writ-writer and prepared an appeal from the 

denial of her habeas petition. Id. at 436. She filed the appeal one day late because her prison unit 

was on lockdown and prison guards threatened her with solitary confinement if she left her cell to 

meet the filing deadline. Id. The district court failed to recognize that the notice of appeal was 

untimely, docketed the notice of appeal and granted a certificate of appealability. Id. at 436–37. 

Tanner did not learn her notice of appeal had been untimely until it was docketed with the Court 

of Appeals, two days beyond the time for filing a timely request for an extension of the 30-day 

period for filing a notice of appeal. Id. at 437. The Court of Appeals found the appeal untimely 

and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id. 

 Tanner then filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the prison guards 

who prevented her from timely filing a notice of appeal during the lockdown. A jury found that 

the guards’ actions unconstitutional. Id. Tanner then returned to district court and filed a motion 
- 3 - 

for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). She asked the district court to vacate and then 

reinstate its judgment dismissing her habeas petition because, she argued, “it would be a 

miscarriage of justice if the district court permitted the prison guards’ conduct – verified as 

unconstitutional by the jury’s verdict in her civil rights case – to cause her to lose her right to 

appeal.” Id. The district court denied relief, finding that Rule 4’s time restrictions are jurisdictional 

and granting relief would impermissibly circumvent the rule’s jurisdictional limits. Id. at 437–38. 

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, holding that equitable 

relief was available under Rule 60(b) and that “[t]he extraordinary circumstances [warranting such 

relief] should have been obvious to the [district] court.” Id. at 443. The Court of Appeals reasoned 

that to hold otherwise would, in effect, have been “to acquiesce in the unconstitutional conduct of 

prison guards” who delayed Tanner’s ability to file an appeal. Id. at 439. The Court of Appeals 

further noted that Tanner demonstrated diligence at each step of her long path of litigation. Id. 443. 

Given the “rare” circumstances of Tanner’s case, id. at 444, the Court of Appeals ordered the 

district court to vacate is judgment dismissing the petition and re-enter the judgment, starting anew 

Rule 4(a)(1)(A)’s thirty-day time limit. 

 The Court finds that Bridges’ situation is distinguishable from Tanner. Bridges did not 

receive timely notice of the Court’s decision because he failed to notify the Court of his transfer 

to another prison as required by Local Rule 11.2. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 11.2. Bridges was transferred 

to a new facility in May 2016, several months before issuance of the Court’s opinion and order 

denying habeas corpus relief. Bridges waited until February 21, 2017 to file a formal notice of 

change of address. ECF No. 41. Moreover, in contrast to the petitioner in Tanner, Bridges has not 

achieved a favorable holding in a § 1983 case. In sum, Bridges fails to show that his circumstances 
- 4 - 

are sufficiently extraordinary and distinct from those of other prisoners to warrant relief under 

Rule 60(b). 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner Bridges’s motion for reconsideration, ECF 

No. 46, is DENIED. 

Dated: January 25, 2018 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

 

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 January 25, 2018. 

 s/Kelly Winslow 

 KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager