Pouncy v. Palmer

Filing 29

ORDER re 25 Motion to Clarify DQ, Vacate Prev Orders, etc. by All Plaintiffs. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Omar Rashad Pouncy,
Petitioner,
v.

13-14695

Carmen D. Palmer,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Respondent.
_________________________/
ORDER
Acting through Counsel, Petitioner Omar Rashad Pouncy filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on November 12, 2013. The case was assigned to
the undersigned.
On December 3, 2014 – more than a year after this action was assigned to the
undersigned – Petitioner’s Counsel filed a motion asking this Court to disqualify itself. The
motion asserts that this Court should disqualify itself because Michael Cox, the undersigned’s
brother, was the Attorney General of the State of Michigan at the time of Petitioner’s underlying
conviction in Genesee County Circuit Court. The motion acknowledges that Michael Cox left
office in 2011. Moreover, the facts that form the basis for the requested recusal were known to
Petitioner’s Counsel at this time this action was assigned to the undersigned. Nevertheless,
Petitioner’s Counsel waited a full year – until after this Court had made several rulings denying
various motions filed by Petitioner – to file the motion.
Although this Court concluded that Petitioner’s motion was without merit and that
disqualification is not required, out of an abundance of caution, this Court nevertheless
1

disqualified itself from this case so that it could be randomly assigned to a different judge.
Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion asking this Court to “clarify” its disqualification
order and vacate certain orders previously issued by this Court that were unfavorable to
Petitioner (e.g., Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, Order
Denying Motion for Summary Judgment as premature, Order Denying Motion to Strike
Respondent’s Request for Dismissal) and to give his motion expedited consideration. (See D.E.
Nos. 25, 26, & 27).
This Court hereby DENIES Petitioner’s request that the Court vacate its previous orders.
This Court has not ruled on any dispositive issues and there is no basis for vacating any of this
Court’s previous orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: January 23, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
January 23, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager

2