Williams v. Rapelje
Filing
18
OPINION AND ORDER granting 16 Motion to reopen habeas petition, granting 15 Motion to amend the caption, granting 16 Motion to amend petition for writ of habeas corpus, ordering that the 17 Amended petition be served upon the respondent and the Michigan Attorney General, and directing respondent to file a supplemental answer and any additional Rule 5 materials. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (DPer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY LAMAR WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
Civil No. 2:14-CV-10408
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
v.
SHERMAN CAMPBELL,
Respondent,
____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REOPEN HABEAS PETITION,
GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND THE CAPTION, GRANTING THE MOTION TO
AMEND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ORDERING THAT THE
AMENDED PETITION BE SERVED UPON THE RESPONDENT AND THE
MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO
FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER AND ANY ADDITIONAL RULE 5 MATERIALS
IN THIS CASE.
On September 1, 2014, this Court dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by
petitioner so that he could exhaust additional claims that he had failed to exhaust in the state court
prior to filing his habeas petition. Petitioner has filed a motion to reopen his petition for writ of
habeas corpus following the exhaustion of his new claims. Petitioner has also filed a motion to
amend his habeas petition. Petitioner has also filed a motion to add a new warden as respondent,
which this Court construes as a motion to amend the caption.
The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to reopen this case to the Court’s active docket. The
Court amends the caption to reflect the name of petitioner’s current warden, Sherman Campbell.
The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus upon
Respondent and the Michigan Attorney General’s Office by first class mail. Respondent shall file
1
a supplemental answer to the amended petition and any additional Rule 5 materials within one
hundred twenty (120) days of the Court’s order.
Federal courts have the power to order that a habeas petition be reinstated upon timely
request by a habeas petitioner, following the exhaustion of state court remedies. See e.g. Rodriguez
v. Jones, 625 F. Supp. 2d 552, 559 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Petitioner’s claims have been exhausted with
the state courts; his petition is now ripe for consideration. Accordingly, the Court will order that the
original habeas petition be reopened.
The Court also orders that the caption in this case be amended to reflect that the proper
respondent in this case is now Sherman Campbell, the warden of the prison where petitioner is
currently incarcerated. See Edwards Johns, 450 F. Supp. 2d 755, 757 (E.D. Mich. 2006); See also
Rule 2(a), 28 foll. U.S.C. § 2254.
The Court grants the motion to amend his habeas petition. The Court permits petitioner to
amend his petition, because there is no indication that allowing the amendment would cause any
delay to this Court nor is there any evidence of bad faith on petitioner’s part in bringing the motion
to amend or prejudice to Respondent if the motion is granted. See Gillette v. Tansy, 17 F. 3d 308,
313 (10th Cir. 1994).
The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus
[Dkt. # 17] and a copy of this Order on Respondent and on the Attorney General for the State of
Michigan by first class mail as provided in Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4. See
Coffee v. Harry, No. 04-71209; 2005 WL 1861943, * 2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2005). Respondent
shall file a supplemental answer to the amended habeas petition within one hundred and twenty days
2
of the Court’s order. 1 See Erwin v. Elo, 130 F. Supp. 2d 887, 891 (E.D. Mich. 2001); 28 U.S.C. §
2243. Respondent is also ordered to provide this Court with any additional Rule 5 materials that
have not already been provided to the Court at the time that it files its supplemental answer. See
Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F. 3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2002); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 5, 28
U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner shall have forty five days from the receipt of the answer to file a reply
brief, if he so chooses. See Rule 5(e) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to reopen the petition for writ of habeas corpus [Dkt. # 16] is
GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall reopen the habeas petition to the Court’s
active docket.
(2) The motion to add new warden as respondent [Dkt. # 15] is GRANTED. The
caption of the case is amended.
(3) The motion to amend the petition for writ of habeas corpus [Dkt. # 16] is
GRANTED.
(4) The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus [Dkt. # 17] and a copy of this Order on Respondent and the Attorney
General by first class mail.
(5) Respondent shall file a supplemental answer and any additional Rule 5 materials
within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the date of this order or show cause
why they are unable to comply with the order.
(6) Petitioner shall have forty five days from the date that he receives the answer to
file a reply brief.
DATED: March 6, 2017
s/Sean F. Cox
HON. SEAN F. COX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Respondent filed an answer to petitioner’s original habeas petition on August 4, 2014 and is therefore
only required to file an answer addressing the claims raised by petitioner in his amended petition.
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY LAMAR WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
Civil No. 2:14-CV-10408
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
v.
SHERMAN CAMPBELL,
Respondent,
____________________________________/
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 6, 2017, the foregoing document was served on
counsel of record via electronic means and upon Anthony Lamar Williams via First Class
mail at the address below:
Anthony Lamar Williams 235097
Saginaw (MSP)
Saginaw Correctional Facility
9625 Pierce Rd.
Freeland, MI 48623
S/J. McCoy
Case Manager
4
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?