UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHNNIE STANLEY,

Petitioner, 

v.

LINDA METRISH,

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 2:08-CV-14237

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;

DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND GRANTING 

LEAVE TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner Johnnie Stanley filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, a state inmate, challenged his convictions for conspiracy to

possess with intent to deliver a controlled substance, more than 650 grams, possession of

a controlled substance, less than 50 grams, and felony firearm. On November 29, 2012,

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

Denying Certificate of Appealability.” Petitioner has now filed a “Motion for Certificate

of Appealability.” Because the Court already has denied a certificate of appealability

(COA), the Court construes Petitioner’s motion as requesting reconsideration of that

denial. 

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

2:08-cv-14237-DPH-MKM Doc # 25 Filed 03/22/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 4071
2

correction of which will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R.

7.1(h)(3). A “palpable 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).

Petitioner asks the Court to reconsider the denial of a certificate of appealability.

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 upon such argument fails to allege sufficient grounds 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. 

Also before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on

appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) provides that a party to a districtcourt 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]o determine that an appeal is in good

faith, a court need only find that a reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has

2:08-cv-14237-DPH-MKM Doc # 25 Filed 03/22/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 4072
3

some merit.” Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir. 2000). While the Court

held that jurists of reason would not find the Court’s decision that the petition was

meritless to be debatable or wrong, the Court finds that an appeal may be taken in good

faith. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s “Motion for Certificate of

Appealability” [dkt. # 23], which the Court has construed as a “Motion for

Reconsideration.” 

The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” [dkt.

#21].

SO ORDERED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: March 22, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on March 22, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14237-DPH-MKM Doc # 25 Filed 03/22/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 4073