Bridges v. Lafler

Filing 35

ORDER granting 29 Motion for Leave to File Late Response; denying 33 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
ARTHUR BRIDGES, # 154318,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 09-cv-11665
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

BLAINE LAFLER,
Respondent.
__________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE LATE RESPONSE AND DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner Arthur Bridges brings this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges
his convictions for one count of conspiracy to deliver cocaine, Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 333.741(2)(a)(iv), and one count of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, Mich. Comp.
Laws § 750.157a. Respondent has filed a Motion for Leave to File Late Response and Petitioner
has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
Petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition in 2009. The Court stayed the petition and
administratively closed the case because the petition contained mixed claims, containing both
exhausted and unexhausted claims. After Petitioner exhausted his state court remedies, he filed
an amended petition and asked the Court to reopen the habeas proceeding. The Court granted the
request and directed Respondent to file an answer to the amended petition by December 8, 2013.
On June 30, 2014, Respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File a Late Response. Respondent
acknowledges receipt of the order requiring an answer. Respondent attributes the failure to file a
timely answer to a mistake made by counsel’s clerical staff. Respondent represents that, when

the error was discovered, counsel worked diligently to obtain the necessary state court record,
prepare the pending motion, and the simultaneously filed answer. Respondent argues that the late
filing is the result of excusable neglect and should be accepted for filing.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides that:
(1)

In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the
court may, for good cause, extend the time:
...
(B)

on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act
because of excusable neglect.

“Although inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not
usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect, it is clear that ‘excusable neglect’ under [Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure] 6(b) is a somewhat ‘elastic concept,’ and is not limited strictly to omissions
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.” Pioneer Investment Services Co. v.
Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993). Excusable-neglect
determinations rely on a balancing of these factors: (1) danger of prejudice to the nonmoving
party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason
for the delay, (4) whether the delay was within the reasonable control of the moving party, and
(5) whether the late-filing party acted in good faith. Nafziger v. McDermott Int’l, Inc., 467 F.3d
514, 522 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Pioneer Investment Services Co., 507 U.S. at 395). In this case,
these factors weigh in favor of allowing the late filing. In particular, Respondent’s reasons for
delay, while within the control of Respondent, do not demonstrate bad faith or intentional
neglect. Further, although the delay is not an insignificant amount of time, Petitioner will not be
prejudiced by allowing the late filing. The motion will be granted.
Also before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Petitioner has
no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas corpus review. See Abdur-2-

Rahman v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995). “‘[A]ppointment of
counsel in a civil case is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not a
right.’” Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987). A habeas petitioner may obtain
representation at any stage of the case “[w]henever the United States magistrate or the court
determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Here, the
interests of justice do not require appointing counsel for Bridges.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Respondent Lafler’s Motion for Leave to File a Late
Response, ECF No. 29, is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Respondent Lafler’s response, ECF No. 30, is ACCEPTED
as filed.
It is further ORDERED that Petitioner Bridges’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel,
ECF No. 33, is DENIED.

Dated: November 24, 2014

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 of record herein by electronic means and upon
Arthur Bridges #154318 at Carson City Correctional Facility, 10274
Boyer Road, Carson City, MI 48811 by first class U.S. mail on
November 24, 2014.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS

-3-