Anderson v. Trombley

Filing 27

OPINION & ORDER denying 16 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing; denying 17 Motion for Oral Argument ; denying 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 19 Motion to Reopen Case; denying 20 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing; denying 21 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing; denying 22 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
MELVIN ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. JAN E. TROMBLEY, Respondent. / OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Melvin Anderson filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his convictions on two counts of possession with intent to deliver between 50 and 450 grams of cocaine, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and one count of felon in possession of a firearm. On February 20, 2009, the Court issued an Opinion and Order Denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On that same date, Petitioner filed a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, Motion for Oral Argument, and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Petitioner subsequently filed the following additional motions: Motion to Re-Open Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, Motion for Evidentiary Hearing for Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Trial and Appellate Counsel, and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. In the Motion to Re-open Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner argues the proceedings should be reopened because the Court's decision denying habeas corpus relief was premature where the Court did not have an opportunity to consider the three motions filed on the same date that the petition was denied. The Court's decision denying habeas corpus relief was Case Number: 07-12154 HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

based upon a careful review of the petition, Respondent's answer, and the relevant state court record. The Court finds that none of the arguments raised in Petitioner's motions warrant a different disposition of the habeas corpus petition. Therefore, the Court denies Petitioner's Motion to Re-open Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The remainder of Petitioner's motions will be denied as moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Re-open Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [dkt. # 19] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing [dkt. #16], Motion for Oral Argument [dkt. #17], Motion for Appointment of Counsel [dkt. #18], Motion for Evidentiary Hearing [dkt. # 20], Motion for Evidentiary Hearing for Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Trial and Appellate Counsel [dkt. # 21], and Motion for Appointment of Counsel [dkt. #22] are DENIED AS MOOT. Dated: May 11, 2009 S/George Caram Steeh GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on May 11, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/Josephine Chaffee Deputy Clerk

2