Lewis v. Hoffner

Filing 11

ORDER granting petitioner's 7 request to lift the stay; an directing respondent to file an answer to petitioner's motion to show cause {ECF 8) and petitioner's motion to show cause (ECF #8) and petitioner's motion for relief fro m judgment 9 The Court orders Respondent to file ans answer to those motions and to Petitioner sentencing claim within twenty-eight days of the date of this order. Petitioner shall have 28 days to file reply.. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES LEWIS,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:15-cv-10766
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS

v.
BONITA HOFFNER,
Respondent.
_________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO LIFT THE STAY (ECF NO. 7)
AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE AN ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF NO. 8) AND PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 9)
On March 2, 2015, petitioner Charles Lewis commenced this action by filing an
application for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition
indicated that Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced in 1977 to
life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Petitioner argued in his habeas

petition that his mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole
for a crime that he committed at the age of seventeen was cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioner
based his argument on Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), in which the Supreme
Court held “that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time
of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual
punishments.’ ” Id. at 2460.
On August 25, 2015, respondent Bonita Hoffner moved to transfer the petition to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as a second or successive

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

On October 19, 2015, the Court denied

Respondent’s motion and stayed this case pending the Supreme Court’s anticipated
decision on whether Miller was retroactive. On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court
held that “Miller announced a substantive rule of constitutional law” and “is retroactive
because it necessarily carri[ies] a significant risk that a defendant – here, the vast
majority of juvenile offenders – faces a punishment that the law cannot impose upon
him.” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 734 (2016) (quotations marks and end
citations omitted).
On February 11, 2016, Petitioner filed three motions in this case. In a purported
motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 7), Petitioner asks the Court to lift its stay of
his case. In a motion to show cause (ECF No. 8), Petitioner asks the Court to expand
the record and to release him from custody on the basis that his conviction was
dismissed fifteen years ago. Finally, in a second motion for relief from judgment (ECF
No. 9), Petitioner alleges that the state trial court dismissed his conviction on April 3,
2000, and that he is presently incarcerated without a conviction or sentence.
Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery, the Court grants Petitioner’s
request to lift the stay (ECF No. 7). The Court lifts its stay and orders Respondent to
address Petitioner’s habeas claim that his mandatory life sentence is cruel and unusual
punishment.
Petitioner’s motion to show cause and second motion for relief from judgment
(ECF Nos. 8 and 9) challenge his murder conviction. The Court orders Respondent to
file an answer to those motions and to Petitioner’s sentencing claim within twenty-eight

2

(28) days of the date of this order. Petitioner shall have twenty-eight (28) days from
the date of Respondent’s answer to file a reply.

Dated: 4/26/16

s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3