Vance v. Woods
OPINION AND ORDER granting motion to amend petition for writ of habeas corpus, ordering that the 40 Amended petition be served upon the respondent and the Michigan Attorney General, and directing the respondent to file an answer to the amended petition and any additional Rule 5 materials. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (DPer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MICHAEL D. VANCE,
CASE NO. 2:09-CV-11368
HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER: (1) GRANTING THE MOTION TO AMEND
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (2) ORDERING
THAT THE AMENDED PETITION (Dkt. # 40) BE SERVED UPON
THE RESPONDENT AND THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL,
AND (3) DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE
AMENDED PETITION AND ANY ADDITIONAL RULE 5 MATERIALS
Michael David Vance, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Gus Harrison
Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for seven counts
of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and three counts of second-degree
criminal sexual conduct.
On October 13, 2016, the Court granted petitioner an extension of time to
file an amended habeas petition. Petitioner has now filed an amended petition for
writ of habeas corpus, which is construed as a motion to amend the petition for
writ of habeas corpus.
The Court grants the motion to amend his habeas petition. Notice and
substantial prejudice to the opposing party are the critical factors in determining
whether an amendment to a habeas petition should be granted. Coe v. Bell, 161
F. 3d 320, 341-342 (6th Cir. 1998). The Court permits petitioner to amend his
petition, because there is no indication that allowing the amendment would cause
any delay to this Court nor is there any evidence of bad faith on petitioner’s part
in bringing the motion to amend or prejudice to Respondent if the motion is
granted. See Gillette v. Tansy, 17 F. 3d 308, 313 (10th Cir. 1994).
The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus [Dkt. # 40] and a copy of this Order on Respondent and on the
Attorney General for the State of Michigan by first class mail as provided in Rule
4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4. See Coffee v. Harry, No.
04-71209; 2005 WL 1861943, * 2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2005). The Respondent
shall file an answer to the amended habeas petition within one hundred and
eighty days of the Court’s order. See Erwin v. Elo, 130 F. Supp. 2d 887, 891
(E.D. Mich. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Respondent is also ordered to provide this
Court with any additional Rule 5 materials that have not already been filed with
the Court at the time that it files its answer. See Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F. 3d 647,
653 (6th Cir. 2002); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. foll. §
2254. Petitioner shall have forty five days from the receipt of the answer to file a
reply brief, if he so chooses. See Rule 5(e) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases,
28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) the motion to amend the petition for writ of habeas corpus is
(4) the Clerk of the Court shall serve copy of the amended petition for
writ of habeas corpus [Dkt. # 40] and a copy of this Order on
Respondent and the Attorney General by first class mail.
(5) Respondent shall file an answer to the amended petition and
produce any additional Rule 5 materials that have not already been
filed with the Court within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the
date of this order or show cause why they are unable to comply with the
(6) Petitioner shall have forty five days from the date that he receives
the answer to file a reply brief.
Dated: January 30, 2017
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
January 30, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on Michael Vance #501288, Gus Harrison Correctional
Facility, 2727 E. Beecher Street, Adrian, MI 49221.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?