Midgyett v. Jackson

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS MOTION TO HOLD RESPONDENT IN DEFAULT (Doc. 9)AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO MAIL A COPY OF THE RESPONSE TO PETITIONER. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GREGORY MIDGYETT, Petitioner, Case No. 17-cv-13846 v. HONORABLE AVERN COHN SHANE JACKSON, Respondent. _____________________________/ ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO HOLD RESPONDENT IN DEFAULT (Doc. 9) AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO MAIL A COPY OF THE RESPONSE TO PETITIONER This is a pro se habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. Petitioner Gregory Midgyett challenges his state court convictions for second-degree murder and three weapon offenses. Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to hold respondent Shane Jackson in default for allegedly failing to file a timely response to the petition. See Doc. 9. Petitioner makes a similar allegation in a letter filed on April 18, 2019. See Doc. 10. Petitioner accurately points out in his motion and letter that Respondent was ordered to file a responsive pleading by June 4, 2018. See Doc. 4. Contrary to Petitioner’s additional allegation, however, Respondent is not in default. He filed a timely answer to the petition and the state-court materials on June 4, 2018. See Docs. 7-8. He has also certified that he mailed a copy of his answer to Petitioner. See Doc. 7, p. 60. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to hold Respondent in default is DENIED. Petitioner also requests a copy of the Respondent’s answer. See Doc. 11. Although Respondent certified that a copy was mailed to Petitioner, in an abundance of caution, the Court DIRECTS that Respondent mail another copy of the answer to Petitioner. SO ORDERED. Dated: 6/12/2019 Detroit, Michigan  S/Avern Cohn AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?