Stokes v. Wolfenbarger

Filing 42

OPINION and ORDER granting 40 Motion to Stay the Writ of Habeas Corpus Pending Appeal. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL STOKES,
Petitioner,

Civil No. 2:07-CV-11341
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

v.
DEBRA SCUTT,
Respondent,
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING A STAY OF THE
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PENDING APPEAL
This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion for a stay pending the
appeal of the Court’s decision to grant habeas relief to the petitioner. For the reasons
stated below, the motion for a stay is GRANTED.
On November 4, 2011, this Court granted petitioner a conditional writ of habeas
corpus, finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Sixth
Amendment right to be represented by counsel at his trial. The Court ordered that
petitioner be afforded a new trial with the assistance of counsel within 90 days or an
unconditional writ would issue. See Stokes v. Scutt, ---- F. Supp. 2d----; No. 2011 WL
5250848 (E.D. Mich. November 4, 2011).
Respondent has now filed a notice of appeal from the Court’s order granting
habeas relief. Respondent has also filed a motion for a stay pending appeal.
There is a presumption that a successful habeas petitioner should be released
from custody pending the state’s appeal of a federal court decision granting habeas
relief, but this presumption may be overcome if the judge rendering the decision, or an
1

Stokes v. Scutt, U.S.D.C. 2:07-CV-11341
appellate court or judge, orders otherwise. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 774
(1987); Workman v. Tate, 958 F. 2d 164, 166 (6th Cir. 1992); F.R.A.P. Rule 23(c).
Because habeas proceedings are civil in nature, the general standards of governing
stays of civil judgments should also guide courts when they must decide whether to
release a habeas petitioner pending the state’s appeal. Hilton, 481 U.S. at 776.
The factors regulating the issuance of a stay are:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely
to succeed on the merits;
(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
(3) whether the issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other
parties interested in the proceeding; and
(4) where the public interest lies.
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. at 776; Workman v. Tate, 958 F. 2d at 166.
In determining whether to grant a stay, a federal court may also consider “[t]he
State’s interest in continuing custody and rehabilitation pending a final determination of
the case on appeal ...; it will be strongest where the remaining portion of the sentence to
be served is long, and weakest where there is little of the sentence remaining to be
served.” Hilton, 481 U.S. at 777.
Although this Court disagrees with respondent’s contention that he has made a
strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of the case on appeal, the
Court will grant respondent a stay pending appeal. In the present case, petitioner was
sentenced on October 27, 2004 to ten to twenty years in prison. Petitioner’s earliest
release date would be June 30, 2014 and his maximum out date would be June 30,

2

Stokes v. Scutt, U.S.D.C. 2:07-CV-11341
2024. 1 Although petitioner may suffer injury from his continued confinement pursuant
to a conviction that this Court has found to be constitutionally infirm, “it would be a
waste of judicial resources for the appeal to proceed in the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals, while simultaneously requiring the State to grant relief to Petitioner.” See
Williams v. Booker, 715 F. Supp. 2d 756, 770 (E.D. Mich. 2010). Accordingly, the Court
will grant respondent’s motion for stay pending appeal.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT Respondent’s Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal [Dkt.
# 40] is GRANTED.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: November 23, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel
of record on November 23, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Secretary

1

This Court obtained this information from the Michigan Department of
Corrections’ Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS), which this Court is permitted
to take judicial notice of. See Ward v. Wolfenbarger,323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821, n. 3
(E.D. Mich. 2004).
3