Mattison v. Perry
Filing
16
ORDER DENYING 14 MOTION TO EXTEND filed by Anthony Mattison, GRANTING 15 MOTION to Reopen Case, and Directing the State to file a Response to Petitioner's Claim. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (SSch)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY RALPH MATTISON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-cv-11026
v.
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
MITCH PERRY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND STAY (document no. 14),
GRANTING MOTION TO RE-OPEN CASE (document no. 15),
AND DIRECTING THE STATE TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S CLAIMS
Anthony Mattison is a state prisoner at Newberry Correctional Facility in Newberry,
Michigan. He filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before
the State could file an answer to the habeas petition, Mattison moved to stay his case and
to hold his habeas petition in abeyance while he pursued additional state remedies. The
Court granted Mattison’s motion and closed the case for administrative purposes. As a
condition of the stay, the Court ordered Petitioner to (1) file a motion for relief from
judgment in the state trial court within ninety days of the Court’s order and (2) file an
amended habeas corpus petition and motion to re-open the case within ninety days of
exhausting state remedies if he was unsuccessful in state court. Currently pending before
the Court are Mattison’s motion to extend the stay and his subsequent motion to re-open
this case.
In his motion to extend the stay, Mattison states that he filed a motion for relief from
judgment in the state trial court within ninety days of this Court’s order and that he has
exhausted his remedies in the lower state courts. Mattison further alleges that, on April 28,
2015, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal the trial court’s decision on his
motion for relief from judgment. He has asked the Michigan Supreme Court to reconsider
its decision, and he wants the Court to continue holding his habeas petition in abeyance
until the Michigan Supreme Court makes a decision on his motion for reconsideration.
Mattison filed his motion to extend the stay on May 14, 2015, but on July 22, 2015,
he filed a motion to re-open the case. In light of the motion to re-open, the Court will deny
as moot Mattison’s motion to extend the stay.
Mattison has also moved to re-open the case to avoid having his habeas claims
barred from review. He points out that the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal
on April 28, 2015, and that, as of ninety days later (July 28, 2015), the state supreme court
had not ruled on his motion for reconsideration. To avoid violating the second condition of
the Court’s stay (that he move to re-open his case within ninety days of exhausting state
remedies), Mattison seeks to re-open his case now.
The Court anticipates that the Michigan Supreme Court will rule on Mattison’s motion
for reconsideration within a relatively short time, if it has not already done so, or at least
before the State’s responsive pleading is due. The Court therefore will allow Mattison to reopen the case even though he apparently has not yet received a decision from the state
supreme court on his motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Mattison’s motion to extend the stay
(document no. 14) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Mattison’s motion to re-open the case (document
no. 15) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the State shall file an answer to the initial petition
and the supplemental arguments attached to Mattison’s motion to re-open this case within
2
six (6) months of the date of this order. The State shall file the relevant portions of the
state-court record with its answer. Petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from the date
of the responsive pleading to file a reply.
SO ORDERED.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: November 13, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on November 13, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Carol Cohron
Case Manager
3
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?