Villeneuve v. Romanowski
OPINION AND ORDER granting motion to lift stay of proceedings, amending caption, granting 22 Motion to amend petition for writ of habeas corpus, directing that the first and second amended petitions 13 , 22 be served on the respondent and the Michigan Attorney General, and directing the respondent to file a supplemental answer and any additional Rule 5 materials in this case. Signed by District Judge Joseph M. Hood. (DPer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil No. 2:14-CV-13768
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS, (2) AMENDING CAPTION, (3) GRANTING THE
MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (4)
DIRECTING THAT THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDED PETITIONS
(Dkts. # 13, # 22) BE SERVED UPON THE RESPONDENT AND THE
MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND (5) DIRECTING RESPONDENT
TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER AND ANY ADDITIONAL RULE 5
MATERIALS IN THIS CASE
John Villeneuve, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Thumb Correctional
Facility in Lapeer, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 20, 2015, the Court granted
petitioner’s motion to amend the habeas petition but then held the
amended petition in abeyance so that petitioner could return to the state
courts to exhaust his new claims.
Petitioner has now filed a second motion to file an amended habeas
petition, which is construed as a motion to lift the stay of proceedings.
The Court grants the motion to lift the stay of proceedings and the
motion to amend the habeas petition. The Court amends the caption. The
Court orders respondent to file a supplemental answer and any additional
Rule 5 materials within sixty (60) days of this order. Petitioner has forty five
(45) days from receipt of the answer to file a reply brief.
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 alleges in his second
amended petition that his claims were exhausted with the state courts. The
case is reopened.
The Court orders that the caption in this case be amended to reflect
that the proper respondent in this case is now George Stephenson, the
warden of the prison where petitioner is now 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 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, 341-342 (6th Cir. 1998). The motion
to amend the petition is granted; there is no 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.
The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the first amended habeas
petition [Dkt. # 13], a copy of the second amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus [Dkt. # 22], 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 these amended
petitions within sixty days 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
Respondent filed an answer to petitioner’s original habeas petition on February 6, 2015 and is
therefore only required to file an answer addressing the claims raised by petitioner in his two amended
supplemental answer. See Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F. 3d 647, 653 (6th Cir.
2002). Petitioner has 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.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: August 31, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on August 31, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
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?