Pouncy v. Palmer

Filing 356

ORDER signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman Denying with Prejudice 238 Motion to Dismiss. (KGri)

Case 2:13-cv-14695-MFL-LJM ECF No. 356 filed 10/13/20

PageID.13313

Page 1 of 2

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 TO DISMISS
WITH PREJUDICE (ECF No. 238)
Omar Pouncy’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is currently pending
before the Court. On May 31, 2019, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the
Petition based upon alleged litigation-related misconduct by Pouncy. (See Mot. To
Dismiss, ECF No. 238.) During an on-the-record conference on February 5, 2020,
the Court explained that even if it were to find that Pouncy actually committed the
alleged misconduct, the Court would not dismiss the entire Petition because doing
so would be a disproportionately harsh sanction. (See Tr. 2/5/2020, ECF No. 284.)
The Court concluded that an appropriate sanction would be to decline to consider
any claim that is the subject of a valid procedural default defense. (See id.) Stated
another way, the Court concluded that if it determined that Pouncy was guilty of the
alleged misconduct, it would not entertain any argument aimed at excusing any
1

Case 2:13-cv-14695-MFL-LJM ECF No. 356 filed 10/13/20

PageID.13314

Page 2 of 2

procedural default. After explaining its position, the Court offered Pouncy a choice:
he could dispute the allegations of misconduct and attempt to preserve his opposition
to Respondent’s procedural default arguments, or he could withdraw the claims that
were the subject of a valid procedural default defense. (See id.) Pouncy chose the
latter option. (See Notices, ECF Nos. 287-89.) He has agreed to withdraw the claims
that are the subject of a valid procedural default defense and to forego his
opportunity to seek to excuse the valid procedural default defenses. (See id.) Given
Pouncy’s position and the Court’s refusal to dismiss the entire Petition even if it
found Pouncy guilty of the alleged misconduct, there is no need for additional
proceedings in connection with the motion to dismiss. The motion is DENIED for
the reasons stated on the record, and the Court will neither (1) entertain any
arguments by Pouncy attempting to excuse Respondent’s valid procedural default
defenses nor (2) proceed to decide any claims that are the subject of a valid
procedural default defense.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2020

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

2