Wilson v. Winn
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER acknowledging re-assignment of case 15-10383 as a companion case to 12-14597, directing the Clerk of Court to re-file pleading no. 1 (petition) in case 15-10383 under case 12-14597, and dismissing the current petition as duplicative. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (DPer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HILLIARD WILSON,
Petitioner,
Civil No. 2:15-CV-10383
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
v.
THOMAS WINN,
Respondent,
____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER ACKNOWLEDGING RE-ASSIGNMENT OF CASE # 2:15-CV10383 AS A COMPANION CASE TO CASE # 2:12-CV-14597, DIRECTING THE
CLERK OF THE COURT TO RE-FILE THE PLEADINGS IN CASE # 2:15-CV-10383
UNDER CASE DOCKET # 2:12-14597, AND DISMISSING THE CURRENT PETITION
AS DUPLICATIVE
Hilliard Wilson, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Saginaw Correctional Facility in
Freeland, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
In his pro se application, petitioner challenges his convictions for assault with intent to
commit murder, M.C.L.A. 750.83; discharging a firearm in an occupied structure, M.C.L.A.
750.234b(2); carrying a concealed weapon, M.C.L.A. 750.227; felon in possession of a
firearm, M.C.L.A. 750.224f; and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony,
M.C.L.A. 750.227b.
Petitioner previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which challenged the
same conviction and sentence. On February 5, 2013, this Court granted petitioner’s motion
to stay the habeas proceedings and hold the petition in abeyance while petitioner returned
to the state courts to exhaust additional claims. See Wilson v. Rapelje, No. 2:12-CV-14597;
2013 WL 450087 (E.D. Mich. February 5, 2013).
1
On January 28, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was
assigned the current case number and originally assigned to Judge Gershwin A. Drain.
Petitioner seeks habeas relief from the convictions that he challenged in his previous
habeas petition that was held in abeyance. The current application for writ of habeas
corpus was re-assigned by Judge Drain to this Court on February 4, 2015 as a companion
case to petitioner’s previously filed habeas petition.
The Court will dismiss the current petition as duplicative of that petition. The Court
will further order that the pleadings filed in this case be re-filed by the Clerk of the Court
under Case Docket # 2:12-CV-14597.
The Court will dismiss Case # 2:15-CV-10383, because it is duplicative of Case #
2:12-CV-14597. A suit is duplicative, and thus subject to dismissal, if the claims, parties,
and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions. See Barapind v.
Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999)(internal citations omitted). Petitioner’s
current habeas petition is subject to dismissal as being duplicative of his first habeas
petition, because both cases seek the same relief. Id. See also Davis v. U.S. Parole Com’n,
870 F. 2d 657 (Table), No. 1989 WL 25837, * 1 (6th Cir. March 7, 1989)(district court can
properly dismiss a habeas petition as being duplicative of a pending habeas petition, where
the district court finds that the instant petition is essentially the same as the earlier petition);
Marks v. Wolfenbarger, No. 06-CV-14325; 2006 WL 2850340 (E.D. Mich. October 3,
2006)(same).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to close Case # 2:15-CV10383 and re-assign the case as a companion case to Wilson v. Rapelje, U.S.D.C. No.
2:12-14597.
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall re-file in Case Docket #
2:12-14597, docket entry 1 from Case Docket # 2:15-10383.
s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: February 9, 2015
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon counsel/parties of record on this
9th day of February, 2015 by electronic/regular mail.
s/ Carol J Bethel
Case Manager
3
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?