Pouncy v. Palmer

Filing 525

ORDER on Petitioner's (1) 515 Motion to Waive Reply to State's Brief, (2) 516 Motion for Virtual or Telephonic Oral Argument, (3) 520 Motion for Clarification, (4) 521 Motion for Access to Michigan Related Legal Materials, (5) 522 Motion to Invite Amicus-Curiae Participation at Oral Argument, and (6) 523 Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Prior Findings. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

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 ON PETITIONER’S (1) MOTION TO WAIVE REPLY TO
STATE’S BRIEF (ECF No. 515), (2) MOTION FOR VIRTUAL OR
TELEPHONIC ORAL ARGUMENT (ECF No. 516), (3) MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION (ECF No. 520), (4) MOTION FOR ACCESS TO
MICHIGAN RELATED LEGAL MATERIALS (ECF No. 521), (5) MOTION
TO INVITE AMICUS CURIAE PARTICIPATION AT ORAL ARGUMENT
(ECF No. 522), AND (6) MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
PRIOR FINDINGS (ECF No. 523)
Now before the Court are motions by Petitioner Omar Rashad Pouncy to (1)
waive reply to state’s brief (ECF No. 515), (2) for virtual or telephonic oral argument
(ECF No. 516), (3) for clarification (ECF No. 520), (4) for access to Michigan
related legal materials (ECF No. 521), (5) to invite amicus curiae participation at
oral argument (ECF No. 522), and (6) to take judicial notice of prior findings (ECF
No. 523). The Court concludes that it may resolve the motions without oral
argument. See Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). The motions are resolved as follows:

1

1.

Pouncy’s Motion to Waive Reply to State’s Brief (ECF No. 515)
is TERMINATED AS MOOT. In the motion, Pouncy asks the
Court to waive his right to reply to Respondent’s supplemental
brief, but he has since filed at least one brief addressing the
arguments raised by Respondent. (See Resp., ECF No. 519.)

2.

Pouncy’s Motion for Virtual or Telephonic Oral Argument (ECF
No. 516) is GRANTED. The Court has set virtual argument on
Pouncy’s Motion for an Indicative Ruling (ECF No. 481) for
January 24, 2025, at 10:30 a.m.

3.

Pouncy’s Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 520) is
GRANTED. The Court clarifies that it will have questions
concerning at least the following matters during the January 24,
2025, hearing:
a.

Whether there would be any tension and/or inconsistency
between (1) a ruling that the Michigan Court of Appeals
did not make the factual determinations challenged by
Pouncy in connection with the court’s resolution of a
federal claim and (2) either (a) the Court’s analysis of, and
ruling on, Pouncy’s waiver of counsel claim in the Court’s
order dated June 28, 2021 (see Order, ECF No. 401,

2

PageID.14383-14400) or (b) any other ruling made by the
Court during the course of these proceedings.
b.

If and to the extent that there would be such an
inconsistency, should such an inconsistency preclude the
Court from ruling now that the Michigan Court of Appeals
did not make the factual determinations challenged by
Pouncy in connection with the court’s resolution of a
federal claim? And what impact, if any, would such a
ruling have on Pouncy’s claims now pending on appeal?

c.

Are the factual determinations challenged by Pouncy
meaningfully inaccurate?

d.

The Court will likely have additional questions, but at this
time the Court is prepared to provide notice only of these
questions.

4.

Pouncy’s Motion for Access to Michigan Related Legal
Materials (ECF No. 521) is DENIED.

The Court is not

persuaded at this point – namely, after several rounds of briefing
– that Pouncy requires additional access to Michigan-specific
materials.

3

5.

Pouncy’s Motion to Invite Amicus Curiae Participation at Oral
Argument (ECF No. 522) is DENIED. The Court believes that
Pouncy can present arguments effectively on his own.

6.

Pouncy’s Motion to take Judicial Notice of Prior Findings (ECF
No. 523) is DENIED. The Court is aware of its prior rulings and
will carefully consider them without taking formal judicial
notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 6, 2025
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 6, 2025, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

4