Abdul Muntaqim Bey v. Rapelje

Filing 21

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER & COUNSEL TO NOTIFY COURT WHETHER REPRESENTED OR PROCEEDING PRO SE., ( Response due by 4/22/2015) Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

GHALIB ABDUL MUNTAQIM BEY,
Petitioner,
Case No. 10-12478
v.
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
LLOYD RAPELJE,
Respondent.
___________________________________/
ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER AND HIS ATTORNEY TO NOTIFY
THE COURT WHETHER PETITIONER IS STILL REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL OR IS PROCEEDING PRO SE
On June 23, 2010, Ghalib Abdul Muntaqim Bey (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se
habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition
challenged Petitioner’s Wayne County conviction and sentence of twenty-eight to
forty-one years for second-degree murder. Petitioner asserted as grounds for relief
that: (1) the trial court deprived him of due process by admitting testimony from a
rebuttal witness; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
prosecution’s expert witness; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present
a defense to the charges; and (4) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object
to the trial court’s instructions to the jury.
On December 27, 2010, respondent Lloyd Rapelje filed a motion to dismiss

the habeas petition. He argued through counsel that, although Petitioner raised his
first claim on direct appeal, he failed to exhaust state remedies for claims two
through four and he still had an available state remedy to exhaust. In an order
dated April 1, 2011, the Court denied Respondent’s motion and held the habeas
petition in abeyance so that Petitioner could pursue additional state-court remedies.
The Court then closed this case for administrative purposes only.
On November 4, 2014, attorney Laura K. Sutton filed an appearance in
Petitioner’s behalf, along with a motion to lift the stay and an amended brief in
support of Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. Ms. Sutton’s amended brief alleges
that: (1) Petitioner is innocent of the crime for which he is incarcerated; (2) the
prosecutor misrepresented evidence during closing arguments; (3) trial counsel
should have (a) investigated the circumstances of the victim’s death, thereby
providing a defense against the causation element of murder, and (b) objected to
evidence on the ground of the husband-wife privilege; (4) appellate counsel was
ineffective for failing to include these issues on direct appeal; and (5) Petitioner’s
sentence violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
On the same day that the Court received Ms. Sutton’s motion and amended
brief, the Court received a pro se motion from Petitioner. His motion seeks relief
from judgment or lifting of the stay and reinstatement of his habeas petition. In an
2

amended habeas corpus petition attached to Petitioner’s motion, he sets forth the
following grounds for relief: (1) the prosecutor committed a fraud on the court by
allowing tainted testimonial evidence on the cause of death; (2) trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to obtain the victim’s complete medical report, which would
have proved that Petitioner did not cause the victim’s death; (3) Petitioner is
actually innocent of the homicide; (4) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing
to present these claims on direct appeal; and (5) Petitioner was denied his
constitutional right to confront witnesses regarding medical treatment which the
victim received after falling out of bed two months after the crime.
Petitioner’s amended petition differs from Ms. Sutton’s amended brief in
that it contains two claims (fraud on the court and denial of the right to confront
witnesses) not raised in Ms. Sutton’s brief. Ms. Sutton’s brief, on the other hand,
contains two claims (prosecutorial misconduct and unconstitutional sentence) that
Petitioner did not raise in his pro se brief. Consequently, the Court is unable to
determine which claims are being presented to the Court for review. An additional
dilemma is whether the Court and counsel for Respondent should communicate
with Ms. Sutton or Petitioner.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Ms. Sutton and Petitioner shall confer with each
3

other and notify the Court within thirty (30) days of this order whether Ms. Sutton
is representing Petitioner or whether Petitioner is representing himself in this
matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 23, 2015
Copies to:
Laura Kathleen Sutton, Esq.
Andrea M. Christensen-Brown, Esq.
Ghalib Abdul Muntaqim Bey, #130425
Lakeland Correctional Facility
141 First Street
Coldwater, MI 49036

4