Liggion v. Winn

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING 24 Request for Extension of Time filed by Deondra L. Liggion Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

Case 2:17-cv-13009-RHC-EAS ECF No. 26, PageID.1223 Filed 05/04/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEONDRA L. LIGGION,
Petitioner,

Case No. 17-13009

v.
THOMAS O. WINN,
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Petitioner Deondra L. Liggion is in the custody of the Michigan Department of
Corrections serving lengthy sentences for second-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.317, assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, Mich. Comp.
Laws § 750.84(1)(a), felon in possession of a firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224f,
and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, second
offense, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b(2). On September 5, 2017, he filed a pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising a single claim:
insufficient evidence supports his convictions.
On March 13, 2020, the court granted Petitioner’s motion to stay this proceeding
to allow him to exhaust state court remedies for additional claims not raised in his
habeas petition. (ECF No. 13.) The court required Petitioner to commence state-court
post-conviction proceedings within 60 days of the date of the Stay Order. (Id.) Petitioner
sought, and the court granted, three motions for extension of time to commence state
court proceedings. (ECF Nos. 15, 18, 20.) In the third and final order granting an

Case 2:17-cv-13009-RHC-EAS ECF No. 26, PageID.1224 Filed 05/04/23 Page 2 of 2

extension of time, the court cautioned Petitioner that no further extensions would be
granted. (ECF No. 20.)
Petitioner later filed a motion to lift stay and reinstate the habeas petition even
though did not exhaust his state-court remedies. (ECF No. 21.) The court granted the
motion, allowing Petitioner to proceed with his exhausted claim. (ECF No. 22.)
Now before the court is Petitioner’s request for an extension of time. (ECF No.
24.) Petitioner asks for yet another extension of time to file a post-conviction motion for
relief from judgment in state court. This matter is no longer stayed and Petitioner
provides no reasonable justification for once again delaying adjudication of his petition.
Petitioner had ample time to exhaust state court-remedies. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Request for Extension of Time” (ECF No. 24)
is DENIED.
S/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 4, 2023

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, May 4, 2023, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

2