Chorazyczewski v. Campbell et al
OPINION and ORDER Requiring Petitioner's Counsel to Clarify the Issues Being Raised in the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 2:15-cv-12754
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
OPINION AND ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER’S COUNSEL
TO CLARIFY THE ISSUES BEING RAISED IN THE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Kevin Chorazyczewski, (“petitioner”), seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his application, filed by attorney Frank G.
Becker, petitioner challenges his conviction for unarmed robbery, M.C.L.A. §
750.530; and being a third felony habitual offender, M.C.L.A. § 769.11. The petition
for writ of habeas corpus is twenty four pages long and divided into forty seven
paragraphs containing numerous factual allegations. Petitioner’s counsel, however,
does not specify the claims that he wishes to raise in his petition, and the Court is
having difficulty discerning the precise claims Petitioner seeks to raise.
Where, as here, there is confusion about the claims being raised by a habeas
petitioner, a district court should order the habeas petitioner to articulate the specific
claims that he or she wishes to raise in his or her petition. See Franklin v. Rose, 765
F. 2d 82, 85 (6th Cir. 1985).
Petitioner’s counsel is ORDERED to file a statement specifically identifying
the claims raised in the petition. Counsel should not provide any additional legal
arguments. The Court simply wants a list precisely identifying each specific claim
presented. Petitioner shall file the list by February 17, 2017.
/s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 2, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on February 2, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary
s/Holly A. Monda
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?