UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER HOWARD, #478574,

Petitioner,

Case Number 1:06-CV-14272

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

KURT JONES,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

In 2006, Petitioner Christopher Howard filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court conviction for first-degree murder, Mich.

Comp. Laws § 750.316(a). Following his conviction, Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment

without parole.

In his petition, Petitioner raised claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the

admission of certain evidence, the conduct of the prosecutor, his actual innocence based upon

“newly-discovered” medical records, and the effectiveness of his counsel. On May 31, 2012, the

Court denied the petition. The Court concluded that one of Petitioner’s claims was procedurally

defaulted and the remainder of the claims lacked merit. The Court also denied a certificate of

appealability and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Petitioner timely moved to alter or amend the judgment brought pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59(e). Petitioner asserts that the Court erred by ruling that: (1) sufficient evidence

was presented to support his first-degree murder conviction; (2) his medical records were not newlydiscovered; (3) he first raised the issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on appeal on

collateral review; and (4) the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was defaulted and could not

1:06-cv-14272-TLL-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 06/27/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1907
-2-

serve as cause to excuse the procedural default of one of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel

claims.

“A motion to alter or amend a judgment,” Rule 59(e) provides, “must be filed no later than

28 days after the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). In evaluating a motion to alter or amend

the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), this Court may properly look to Local Rule 7.1. Hence v.

Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999). Local Rule 7.1, in turn, provides that “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. The movant must not only

demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be

heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a

different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3); see Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc.,

P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). 

Here, Petitioner does not demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court has been misled,

but rather presents the same issues previously ruled upon by the Court. Regarding his first

argument, as the Court explained in the order denying the habeas petition, the record demonstrates

that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence of first-degree murder. Likewise, regarding

Petitioner’s second argument, as previously noted Petitioner’s medical records were not newlydiscovered, do not establish his actual innocence, and do not justify habeas relief. The same is true

for the supplemental medical records attached to the present motion. As to Petitioner’s challenge

to appellate counsel’s performance, as the Court previously noted, Petitioner procedurally defaulted

this argument because he first raised it on collateral review. Nonetheless, as the Court explained in

the order denying the habeas petition, Petitioner did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of

appellate counsel provided cause to excuse the petitioner’s default. Appellate counsel presented

legitimate issues on direct appeal, including claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the

1:06-cv-14272-TLL-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 06/27/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1908
-3-

admission of certain evidence, the conduct of the prosecutor, and the effectiveness of trial counsel.

Such issues, although ultimately unsuccessful, were substantial. In sum, no grounds for

reconsidering the decision denying habeas relief has been advanced by Petitioner. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (ECF

No. 28) is DENIED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: June 27, 2012

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

upon each attorney of record herein by electronic means and upon

Christopher Howard, #468574, at Lakeland Correctional Facility, 141

First Street, Coldwater, MI 49036 by first class U.S. mail on June 27,

2012.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:06-cv-14272-TLL-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 06/27/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1909