Clay v. Haas

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER Denying the Motions for Appointment of Counsel and to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 14 and 15 ). Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (BSau)

Case 2:17-cv-11522-GCS-MKM ECF No. 16, PageID.205 Filed 01/05/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEREMY WESLEY CLAY,
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:17-CV-11522
Hon. George Caram Steeh
United States District Judge

v.
RANDALL HAAS,
Respondent.
__________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS
FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Before the Court are petitioner’s motions for the appointment of
counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons that follow, the
motions are denied.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. This Court summarily dismissed petitioner’s habeas
application on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust his claim with the
state court. The Court declined to hold the petition in abeyance, because
petitioner’s sole claim for relief was unexhausted, thus depriving the Court
of jurisdiction over the petition. Clay v. Haas, No. 2:17-CV-11522, 2017 WL
-1-

Case 2:17-cv-11522-GCS-MKM ECF No. 16, PageID.206 Filed 01/05/22 Page 2 of 3

2306447 (E.D. Mich. May 26, 2017). The Court subsequently denied
petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to re-file his petition for writ of
habeas corpus after he exhausted his claim in the state court, because the
Court did not retain jurisdiction over petitioner’s first habeas petition when
the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. The denial of the motion
was without prejudice to petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus
with the federal district court under a new case number. Clay v. Haas, No.
2:17-CV-11522 (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2017)(ECF No. 10).
Petitioner has now filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and
a second motion requesting the appointment of counsel and permission to
proceed in forma pauperis.
This Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the motions because the Court
did not retain jurisdiction over the case when the Court dismissed the
petition without prejudice. Petitioner is free to file a new habeas petition
under a new case number. Petitioner should submit his requests for
counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis with a new habeas petition filed
under a new case number. Accordingly, the motions are denied without
prejudice.

-2-

Case 2:17-cv-11522-GCS-MKM ECF No. 16, PageID.207 Filed 01/05/22 Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, the motions to appoint counsel and to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 14, 15) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: January 5, 2022

s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
January 5, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Jeremy W. Clay #861817, Macomb Correctional Facility,
34625 26 Mile Road, New Haven, MI 48048.
s/Brianna Sauve
Deputy Clerk

-3-