Carter v. Bauman
OPINION and ORDER Granting Petitioner's 13 MOTION for an Extension of Time to File His Post-Conviction Motion for Relief from Judgment with the State Court. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
THOMAS TYRONE CARTER,
Civil No. 2:16-CV-11489
HONORABLE GERALD E. ROSEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE HIS POST-CONVICTION MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT WITH THE STATE COURT
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in
which he sought relief from his state court convictions. This Court held the petition for writ
of habeas corpus in abeyance to permit petitioner to return to the state courts to exhaust
additional claims which had not yet been presented to the state courts. The stay was
conditioned on petitioner initiating his state post-conviction remedies within sixty days of
receiving this Court’s order and returning to federal court within sixty days of completing
his state court post-conviction proceedings. Carter v. Woods, No. 2:16-CV-11489, 2016
WL 5661591 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2016).
Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file his post-conviction motion
for relief from judgment with the state courts, which was granted.
Petitioner has filed a second motion for an extension of time. For the reasons that
follow, petitioner is GRANTED a sixty day extension of time to file his post-conviction
motion for relief from judgment with the state court.
Petitioner claims that the Michigan Department of Corrections lost his original 6.500
post-conviction motion. Petitioner has requested the assistance of prison paralegals
through the Legal Writers Services to draft another motion. Petitioner also claims he
needs additional time to collect affidavits in support of his claims.
Petitioner is granted a sixty day extension of time to file his motion for relief from
judgment with the state trial court. A federal district court has the power to extend the stay
of a habeas petition, particularly where the respondent does not oppose the extension of
the stay. See e.g. Roberts v. Norris, 415 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2005). Petitioner did all
that he could reasonably do to file his state post-conviction motion for relief from judgment
on time, but was “prevented in some extraordinary way” from filing the motion with the state
courts on time. Accordingly, an extension of time should be granted to petitioner. See
Schillereff v. Quarterman, 304 F. App’x. 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2008).
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for an extension of time [Dkt. # 13] is GRANTED.
Petitioner may file a motion for relief from judgment with the state court within sixty (60)
days of receipt of this Court’s order. If he fails to file a motion or notify the Court that
he has done so, the Court will lift the stay and will reinstate the original petition for writ of
habeas corpus to the Court’s active docket and will proceed to adjudicate only those claims
that were raised in the original petition.
If Petitioner files a motion for relief from judgment, he shall notify this Court that
such motion papers have been filed in state court. The case shall then be held in
abeyance pending Petitioner's exhaustion of the claims.
After Petitioner fully exhausts his new claims, Petitioner is ORDERED to file an
amended Petition that includes the new claims within sixty days after the conclusion
of his state court post-conviction proceedings, along with a motion to lift the stay.
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of his case.
s/Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Judge
Dated: January 17, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on January 17, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Case Manager, (313) 234-5135
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?