Baker v. Stewart

Filing 19

OPINION AND ORDER granting 18 Motion to reinstate the habeas petition, ordering the Clerk of the Court to reopen the case, granting motion to amend the petition for writ of habeas corpus, directing that the amended petition be served upon the respondent and the Michigan Attorney General, and directing the respondent to file an answer and any additional Rule 5 materials. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CORRINE BAKER,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil No. 2:15-CV-11629
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ANTHONY STEWART,
Respondent.
______________________/
OPINION AND ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO REINSTATE
THE HABEAS PETITION (Dkt. # 18) AND ORDERING THE CLERK OF
THE COURT TO REOPEN THE CASE TO THE COURT’S ACTIVE
DOCKET, (2) GRANTING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (3) DIRECTING THAT THE
AMENDED PETITION (Dkt. ## 14-17) BE SERVED UPON THE
RESPONDENT AND THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND
(4) DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE AN ANSWER AND
ANY ADDITIONAL RULE 5 MATERIALS IN THIS CASE
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, which was held in abeyance to permit Petitioner to return to
the state courts to exhaust additional claims.
Petitioner has filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
which is construed as a motion to reopen the case and to amend the
habeas petition. The motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall
reopen the case and serve a copy of the amended petition for a writ of
habeas corpus upon respondent and the Michigan Attorney General’s
-1-

Office. Respondent shall file an answer and any additional Rule 5
materials within ninety (90) 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 alleges in her amended
petition that her claims were exhausted with the state courts. The case is
reopened.
Petitioner’s proposed amended habeas petition should be granted
because it advances claims that may have arguable merit. See e.g. Braden
v. United States, 817 F.3d 926, 930 (6th Cir. 2016).
The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the amended petition for a
writ of habeas corpus [Dkt. ## 14-17] and a copy of this Order on Respondent
and on the Attorney General for the State of Michigan as provided in Rule 4
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4. See Coffee v. Harry, No. 0471209, 2005 WL 1861943, *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2005). Respondent shall
file an answer to the amended petition within ninety 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 shall provide any additional Rule 5 materials with the
answer. See Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2002); Rules
-2-

Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.1 Petitioner has
forty five (45) days from the receipt of the answer to file a reply brief, if she
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 reinstate the petition is GRANTED. The
Clerk of the Court shall reopen the habeas petition to the
Court’s active docket.
(2) The motion to amend the petition for writ of habeas corpus is
GRANTED.
(3) The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the amended
petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Dkt. ## 14-17] and a copy
of this Order on Respondent and the Attorney General.
(4) Respondent shall file an answer and any additional Rule 5
materials within ninety (90) days of the date of this order or
show cause why they are unable to comply with the order.
(5) Petitioner shall have forty five (45) days from the date that
she receives the answer to file a reply brief.
Dated: October 2, 2019
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Respondent already filed some Rule 5 materials in this case and would therefore only be required to file
any additional Rule 5 materials from petitioner’s state post-conviction proceedings or any other Rule 5
materials which have already not been provided.

-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
October 2, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-4-