Crumley v. Jackson
OPINION AND ORDER directing the Clerk of the Court of reopen the case to the Court's active docket, amending the case caption, ordering that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be served upon the respondent and the Michigan Attorney General, and directing respondent to file an answer and Rule 5 materials. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (DPer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 17-cv-12497
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
OPINION AND ORDER (1) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT
TO REOPEN THE CASE TO THE COURT’S ACTIVE DOCKET; (2)
AMENDING THE CAPTION IN THIS CASE; (3) ORDERING THAT THE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BE SERVED UPON THE
RESPONDENT AND THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND (4)
DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE AN ANSWER AND THE RULE 5
MATERIALS IN THIS CASE [#8]
Petitioner Matthew Crumley filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF
No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which was held in abeyance to permit Petitioner
to exhaust additional claims in the state court. See ECF No. 5. In his pro se
application, Petitioner challenges his conviction for armed robbery, MICH. COMP.
LAWS § 750.529, and third degree fleeing and eluding a police officer, MICH. COMP.
LAWS § 257.602a(3)(a). Id. at PageID.30.
Petitioner filed a Request to Lift Stay on December 9, 2019. ECF No. 8. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT Petitioner’s Request.
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 that his claims have been exhausted with the state courts. The
Court therefore orders that the original habeas petition be reopened.
Additionally, the caption in this case is amended to reflect that the proper
respondent in this case, Jack Kowalski, is now the warden of the prison where
Petitioner is currently incarcerated. See Edwards v. Johns, 450 F. Supp. 2d 755, 757
(E.D. Mich. 2006) (“The only proper respondent in a habeas case is the habeas
Petitioner’s custodian, which in the case of an incarcerated habeas Petitioner is the
warden.”); see also Rule 2(a), 28 foll. U.S.C. § 2254.
The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the habeas petition (ECF No. 1),
as well as a copy of this Order, on Respondent and on the Michigan Attorney
General’s Office by first class mail as provided in Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §
2254 Cases. See Coffee v. Harry, No. 04-71209, 2005 WL 1861943, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. Aug. 2, 2005). Respondent shall file an answer within one hundred and eighty
days of the Court’s order. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Erwin v. Elo, 130 F. Supp. 2d
887, 891 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Additionally, Respondent is also ordered to provide
this Court with the proper Rule 5 materials at the time he files his answer. See Griffin
v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2002); Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254
Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
Petitioner has forty-five days from the receipt of the answer to file a reply
brief, if he so chooses. See Rule 5(e) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28
U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
For the reasons articulated above, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request
to Lift Stay [#8] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 30, 2020
s/Gershwin A. Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
January 30, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
/s/ Teresa McGovern
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?