Lister v. Trierweiler
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner's (1) 3 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (2) 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, (3) 13 MOTION for Oral Argument, (4) 14 MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing, and (5) 15 MOTION for Relief from Judgment. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 2:17-cv-10367
Hon. Denise Page Hood
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S (1) MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [DKT 3], (2) MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL [DKT 4], (3) MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
[DKT 13], (4) MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING [DKT 14], AND (5)
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [DKT 15]
On January 31, 2017, Petitioner Derrick Lister, a state inmate, filed a
pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging
that he is incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. Petitioner asked
to have his petition held in abeyance, and then he changed his mind and
requested to proceed on the claims presented in an amended petition.
Respondent has been ordered to file a responsive pleading that is due on
August 11, 2017. Pending before the Court are five motions filed by Petitioner
seeking various forms of peremptory relief, including the appointment of
counsel, an evidentiary hearing, and oral argument. [Dkts. 3, 4, 13, 14, and
It is well settled that “trial courts have inherent power to control their
dockets,” Anthony v. BTR Auto. Sealing Sys., Inc., 339 F.3d 506, 516 (6th Cir.
2003). Trial courts maintain the power to “manage their own affairs so as to
achieve an orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962).
Until Respondent has filed a responsive pleading and copies of the
state court record, the Court is not in a position to decide whether Petitioenr
is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motions will be
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will consider whether to appoint
Petitioner counsel, whether oral argument is necessary, whether an
evidentiary hearing is warranted, and whether any other form of relief is
appropriate in the interests of justice after the case is ready for review without
the need for Petitioner to file any additional motions.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: July 12, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on July 12, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
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?