Brown v. Jackson
Filing
26
OPINION AND ORDER denying 23 Motion to Stay the proceedings and to hold the habeas petition in abeyance. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HENRY BROWN,
Petitioner,
Case Number: 2:17-CV-13817
HON. JUDGE GEORGE CARAM STEEH
v.
RANDEE REWERTS,
Respondent.
_____________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO STAY THE
PROCEEDINGS AND TO HOLD THE HABEAS PETITION IN ABEYANCE
On June 20, 2019, this Court denied petitioner’s application for a writ
of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court also
denied petitioner a certificate of appealability or leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. See Brown v. Rewerts, No. 2:17-CV-13817, 2019 WL 2539317
(E.D. Mich. June 20, 2019).
Petitioner has now filed a motion to hold the petition in abeyance so
that he can return to the state court to exhaust additional claims that were
not included in his original petition. For the reasons that follow, the motion
is DENIED.
The Court will deny the motion to hold the petition in abeyance
-1-
pending the exhaustion of these additional claims because petitioner has
not received authorization from the Sixth Circuit to file a successive petition
for a writ of habeas corpus challenging these claims in federal court. As
mentioned above, this Court has already denied petitioner habeas relief
with respect to his convictions.
Before a second or successive habeas petition is filed in a federal
district court, a habeas petitioner shall move in the appropriate court of
appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the petition.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); In re Wilson, 142 F.3d 939, 940 (6th Cir. 1998).
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a
federal district court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a successive
post-conviction motion or petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
absence of an order from the court of appeals authorizing the filing of such
a successive motion or petition. Ferrazza v. Tessmer, 36 F. Supp. 2d 965,
971 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
A federal court is without jurisdiction to enter a stay of proceedings in
connection with a successive habeas petition absent express authorization
by the applicable court of appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
See Alley v. Bell, 392 F.3d 822, 833 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Kutzner v.
-2-
Cockrell, 303 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2002). In addition, this Court would
lack the jurisdiction to allow petitioner to file an amended habeas petition
which added these successive habeas claims, in the absence of a pre-filing
authorization from the Sixth Circuit. Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245,
1247 (11th Cir. 2004). Finally, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, once a judgment
has been entered in a case, including a habeas case, the filing of an
amendment cannot be allowed until the judgment is set aside or vacated.
See Bishop v. Lane, 478 F. Supp. 865. 866-67 (E.D. Tenn. 1978); see also
Pitts v. Champion, 16 F. App’x 975, 977 (10th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the
Court will deny the motion for abeyance without prejudice to petitioner’s
ability to seek permission from the Sixth Circuit to file a successive habeas
petition once petitioner has exhausted these additional claims in the state
courts.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to hold the petition in abeyance [Dkt.
Entry # 23] is DENIED. The denial is without prejudice to petitioner’s ability
to seek permission from the Sixth Circuit to file a successive habeas
petition once petitioner has exhausted his claims in the state courts.
Dated: July 11, 2019
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
July 11, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Henry Brown #281484, Carson City Correctional Facility,
10522 Boyer Road, Carson City, MI 48811.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk
-4-
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?