Mann v. Rivard
OPINION AND ORDER granting motion to reopen 15 Habeas petition, granting 15 Motion to amend petition for writ of habeas corpus, and amending caption. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 2:14-cv-12828
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REOPEN HABEAS PETITION , GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS , AND AMENDING CAPTION
On April 17, 2015, Judge Patrick J. Duggan entered an opinion and order granting
Petitioner Mann's motion to hold his habeas petition in abeyance to allow Petitioner to
return to the state courts to exhaust additional claims that he had failed to exhaust in the
state court prior to filing his habeas petition. Order, ECF No. 12. The court also
administratively closed the case. Petitioner has now filed a motion to reopen his petition for
writ of habeas corpus following the exhaustion of his claims in state courts. Petitioner has
also filed a motion to amend his habeas petition. ECF No. 15. For the reasons below, the
Court will grant Petitioner's motion.
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 Mann'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.
Also, the Court will order that the caption in this case be amended to reflect that the
proper respondent in this case is now Bonita Hoffner, the warden of the prison where
petitioner is currently incarcerated. See Edwards Johns, 450 F. Supp. 2d 755, 757 (E.D.
Mich. 2006) (holding that a habeas petition must name the appropriate state official as the
respondent); see also Rule 2(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District
Courts, 28 foll. U.S.C. § 2254.
Additionally, the Court will grant Petitioner's motion to amend his habeas petition.
"Notice and substantial prejudice to the opposing party" are the critical factors in
determining whether an amendment to a habeas petition should be granted. Coe v. Bell,
161 F.3d 320, 341–42 (6th Cir. 1998). Here, there is no indication that allowing the
amendment would cause prejudice to Respondent or delay to the Court; nor is there
evidence of bad faith on Petitioner's part in bringing the motion. 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 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.
See Coffee v. Harry, No. 04-71209, 2005 WL 1861943, *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2005). The
Respondent shall file a supplemental answer addressing the claims raised by Petitioner in
his amended petition, within one hundred and eighty days of the Court's order. 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. §
WHEREFORE it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) The motion to reopen the petition for writ of habeas corpus  is GRANTED.
The Clerk of the Court shall reopen the habeas petition to the Court's active
(2) The caption of the case is AMENDED.
(3) The motion to amend the petition for writ of habeas corpus  is GRANTED.
(4) The Clerk of the Court shall SERVE a copy of the amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus  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 eighty (180) 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.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: January 26, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on January 26, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/David P. Parker
Case Manager (313) 234-2680
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?