Watkins v. McKee

Filing 47

OPINION and ORDER (1) Granting In Part The Motion For Reconsideration 45 , (2) Directing The Clerk Of The Court To Reopen The Case To The Court's Active Docket, and (3) Requiring Supplemental Briefs From The Parties And Setting Deadlines (Petit ioner shall file a supplemental brief and any supporting documentation within sixty days of this order; Respondent has thirty days from the time that petitioner files his supplemental brief to file a supplemental answer; Petitioner may file a reply brief, if he wishes, within thirty days of the supplemental answer). Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (McColley, N)

Case 2:10-cv-13199-AJT-PJK ECF No. 47 filed 08/26/20

PageID.1584

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GARY EUGENE WATKINS,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil No. 2:10-CV-13199
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

RANDALL HAAS,
Respondent,
____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 45), (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE
COURT TO REOPEN THE CASE TO THE COURT’S ACTIVE DOCKET, AND
(3) REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS FROM THE PARTIES AND
SETTING DEADLINES
Before the Court is petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. For the reasons
that follow, the motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Clerk of the Court shall
reopen the case to the Court’s active docket. The parties are directed to file
supplemental briefs within the time allotted below.
This Court granted petitioner a writ of habeas corpus, finding that he had
been denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Watkins v. Haas, 143 F.
Supp. 3d 632, 634 (E.D. Mich. 2015). The Sixth Circuit reversed this Court’s
decision and remanded the case to this Court to adjudicate the remaining issues.
Watkins v. Deangelo-Kipp, 854 F.3d 846 (6th Cir. 2017); cert. Den. 138 S. Ct.
101 (2017).

1

Case 2:10-cv-13199-AJT-PJK ECF No. 47 filed 08/26/20

PageID.1585

Page 2 of 4

On remand, the Court reopened the case to the Court’s active docket and
set deadlines for the parties to file supplemental briefs. (ECF No. 40). The
parties did not file supplemental briefs within the time period allotted to do so.
This Court determined that the case was ripe for adjudication and
proceeded to review the pleadings already filed and the state court record. On
June 19, 2020, this Court summarily dismissed the case with prejudice, pursuant
to the one year statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Watkins v.
DeAngelo-Kipp, No. 2:10-CV-13199, 2020 WL 3402025 (E.D. Mich. June 19,
2020).
Petitioner’s counsel has now filed a motion for reconsideration.
U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for
reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant
demonstrates a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been
misled and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction
thereof. Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 340 F. Supp. 2d 773, 774 (E.D. Mich. 2004);
Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550-51 (E.D. Mich. 1999 (citing L.R.
7.1(g)(3)). A motion for reconsideration which merely presents “the same issues
ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication,” shall be
denied. Ward, 340 F. Supp. 2d at 774.
Petitioner’s counsel argues in his motion for reconsideration that this Court
prematurely adjudicated the remaining issues in the petition. Petitioner’s counsel
appears to argue that there was some confusion regarding when to file a
2

Case 2:10-cv-13199-AJT-PJK ECF No. 47 filed 08/26/20

PageID.1586

Page 3 of 4

supplemental brief because he had sent a letter to this Court suggesting that a
status conference and evidentiary hearing be set prior to the filing of any briefs.
Petitioner’s counsel also points to the ongoing health crisis caused by the
Coronavirus pandemic and its effect on the operations of this Court. Chief Judge
Denise Page Hood, in fact, issued Administrative Order 20-AO-021, which gives
district judges flexibility in setting deadlines. Petitioner’s counsel also argues that
this Court failed to consider certain evidence that had previously been submitted
by counsel regarding petitioner’s mental health status when determining that
petitioner’s remaining claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Counsel
finally requests a status conference.
The Court will grant the motion for reconsideration in part. The language
in the Court’s order on remand setting deadlines for supplemental briefs made it
optional for the parties to file supplemental briefs. This may have confused
petitioner’s counsel over when to file a supplemental brief. Counsel may also
have been confused after sending letters to the Court that a status conference
would be conducted before supplemental pleadings would be ordered. Lastly,
the unique circumstances of the Coronavirus pandemic have understandably
caused delays in the filing of pleadings by various litigants. Accordingly, the
Court will reopen the case the Court’s active docket and will require the parties to
file supplemental briefs.
Federal courts have the power to order that a habeas petition be reinstated
when necessary to adjudicate further issues. See e.g. Rodriguez v. Jones, 625
3

Case 2:10-cv-13199-AJT-PJK ECF No. 47 filed 08/26/20

PageID.1587

Page 4 of 4

F.Supp.2d 552, 559 (E.D.Mich.2009). The Court will order that the original
habeas petition be reopened on the Court's active docket to direct the parties to
file supplemental pleadings.
The Court will further order the parties to file supplemental pleadings.
Petitioner shall file a supplemental brief and any supporting documentation within
sixty days of this order. Respondent has thirty days from the time that
petitioner files his supplemental brief to file a supplemental answer. Petitioner
may file a reply brief, if he wishes, within thirty days of the supplemental answer.
Once the parties have submitted their supplemental briefs, the Court will
adjudicate the remaining issues in this case. The Court will consider whether it is
necessary to have a status conference or an evidentiary hearing after receiving
the supplemental briefs.
The Court at this time will deny the motion for reconsideration regarding
the Court’s alleged failure to review the evidence of petitioner’s mental history
without prejudice to petitioner advancing any arguments or evidence in support of
any equitable tolling arguments.
s/Arthur J. Tarnow____________________
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: August 26, 2020

4