Nolen v. United States of America

Filing 16

ORDER Denying 14 Request to Reopen Case and 15 Letter Requesting Sentence Reduction due to Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CLYDE NOLEN,
Petitioner,

Case No. 11-13964

v.

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
LETTER REQUESTS [14][15]
This habeas corpus action brought by a Michigan state prisoner was summarily
dismissed on November 3, 2011 after the Court found that it could not determine the
grounds upon which Petitioner sought relief.

(ECF No. 10.)

Over ten years later,

Petitioner now brings a letter request to reopen this case. (ECF No. 15.) But it is still
unclear upon which grounds Petitioner seeks relief. Petitioner has also filed a letter
requesting a sentence reduction due to “extraordinary and compelling reasons” as a result
of an alleged sentencing disparity. (ECF No. 14.) Because Petitioner is serving a state
sentence, however, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which gives a federal court the authority
to reduce a term of imprisonment it has imposed “if it finds that extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction,” is inapplicable. And a sentencing disparity

1 

is generally not a basis for habeas relief. See, e.g., Getsy v. Mitchell, 495 F.3d 295, 30506 (6th Cir. 2007). For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s letter requests are DENIED.1
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: November 30, 2021
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on November 30, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager

1

Because Petitioner’s habeas corpus action was dismissed without prejudice,
neither the Court’s original order nor this order prevents Petitioner from filing a new
petition seeking habeas relief.
2