Pouncy v. Palmer

Filing 354

ORDER Denying 353 Motion for Clarification or Modification of Response Schedule. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
OMAR RASHAD POUNCY,
Petitioner,
Case No. 13-cv-14695
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CARMEN D. PALMER,

Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR
MODIFICATION OF RESPONSE SCHEDULE (ECF NO. 353)
Now before the Court is Petitioner Omar Pouncy’s Motion for Clarification
or Modification of Response Schedule (ECF No. 353). For the reasons explained
below, the motion is DENIED.
Omar Pouncy’s habeas petition in this action asserts numerous claims for
relief. In one of those claims, he alleges that the state trial court violated his right to
a public trial when it excluded members of the public from voir dire at his criminal
trial. The Court entered an order denying relief on that claim on July 20, 2015 (see
ECF No. 58) and a second order denying a motion for reconsideration on August 15,
2020 (see ECF No. 61).
More than five years after the Court denied relief on the public trial claim,
Pouncy filed a second motion for reconsideration of the denial (see ECF No.
1

330). The Court denied that motion for procedural reasons, and Pouncy then refiled
it (see ECF No. 353).
After Pouncy filed his most recent motion for reconsideration of the public
trial claim (ECF No. 353), the Court carefully reviewed the motion and the legal
authorities cited in the motion. The Court had questions about the arguments made
in the motion, and the Court convened an on-the-record status conference to discuss
its questions with Pouncy’s counsel. During the conference, Pouncy’s counsel
acknowledged that the Court’s questions were fair ones. The Court offered
Pouncy’s counsel an opportunity to file a supplemental memorandum addressing the
Court’s questions, and counsel accepted that offer. On September 28, 2020 – more
than five weeks later – Pouncy’s counsel filed a memorandum in which he
addressed, among other things, the Court’s questions concerning the arguments in
the motion for reconsideration of the public trial claim (see ECF No. 349). That
same day, the Court reviewed Pouncy’s memorandum and decided that Pouncy’s
arguments in support of reconsideration warrant further review. The Court ordered
Respondent to respond to the motion for reconsideration (see ECF No. 350). And
the Court gave Respondent until November 6, 2020 – roughly five weeks later – to
file the response (see id).
Pouncy has now filed a Motion for Clarification or Modification of Response
Schedule (ECF No. 353). In the motion, he questions whether the Court mistakenly

2

set the response date for early November rather than early October. In the
alternative, he argues that if the Court intentionally set the response date for early
November, the Court should reconsider that date and move it up to early October.
The Court did not mistakenly set the response date for November. The Court
set the November response date based upon a number of factors, including, but not
limited to, its assessment of (1) the amount of time that Respondent needs to craft a
careful response to the motion and (2) when the Court would be able to review and
decide the motion.
The Court declines to reconsider or change the response date. First, the date
is fair and reasonable. Pouncy had five years to develop the motion for
reconsideration and then took five weeks to prepare and file a supplemental
memorandum addressing the Court’s questions concerning the arguments raised in
the motion. Giving Respondent roughly five weeks to carefully review Pouncy’s
arguments, conduct appropriate research, and then prepare and file a response is
equitable and appropriate.
Second, advancing the response date would not meaningfully speed up a
ruling on the motion. The Court currently has substantial work on this very case that
it must complete before turning to the motion. The Court recently heard argument
on, and began its final review of, Pouncy’s five remaining habeas claims. The
briefing and supplemental briefing on these claims spans hundreds of pages and cites

3

to scores of cases. The review of the issues and drafting of a decision are consuming
a substantial amount of the Court’s time – and will continue to do so for quite a
while. The Court also has substantial time-sensitive work on other cases, including
numerous motions for compassionate release filed by federal prisoners based upon
the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court could not turn to Pouncy’s motion for
reconsideration in early October even if Respondent filed a response at that
time. Thus, moving the response date to that time will not meaningfully expedite a
decision on the motion.
The Court appreciates and respects Pouncy’s desire for prompt resolution of
his claims. But under the present circumstances, there is good cause to set
November 6th as the date for Respondent to respond to the motion for
reconsideration. In the meantime, the Court will continue to work diligently in its
review of Pouncy’s remaining claims and to move toward issuing a final decision on
the claims. And the Court will turn to the motion for reconsideration as soon as
reasonably possible after Respondent files a response to the motion.

4

For all of these reasons, Pouncy’s Motion for Clarification or Modification of
Response Schedule is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2020

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on October 5, 2020, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

5