Kelley v. Braman

Filing 14

ORDER granting 13 Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (MacKay, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARCUS MANDELLE KELLEY,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil No. 2:18-CV-11161
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEWAYNE BURTON,
Respondent.
/
ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL
This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion for immediate
consideration and for a stay pending the appeal of the Court’s decision to
grant habeas relief to the petitioner. For the reasons stated below, the
motions are GRANTED.
On May 1, 2019, this Court granted petitioner a conditional writ of
habeas corpus, on the ground that the prosecution violated Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150
(1972) by withholding or failing to disclose evidence that the officer in
charge of petitioner’s criminal case had lied in a prior drug case and was
being investigated for perjury and misconduct by the Oakland County
Sheriff Department at the time of petitioner’s trial, for which he was
1

subsequently discharged from employment. See Kelley v. Burton, 377 F.
Supp. 3d 748 (E.D. Mich. 2019).
Respondent has filed a motion for a stay pending appeal.
There is a presumption that a successful habeas petitioner should be
released from custody pending the state’s appeal of a federal court
decision granting habeas relief, but this presumption may be overcome if
the judge rendering the decision, or an appellate court or judge, orders
otherwise. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 774 (1987); Workman v. Tate,
958 F. 2d 164, 166 (6th Cir. 1992); F.R.A.P. Rule 23(C). Because habeas
proceedings are civil in nature, the general standards of governing stays of
civil judgments should also guide courts when they must decide whether to
release a habeas petitioner pending the state’s appeal. Hilton, 481 U.S. at
776.
The factors regulating the issuance of a stay are:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that
he is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a
stay;
(3) whether the issuance of the stay will substantially injure the
other parties interested in the proceeding; and
(4) where the public interest lies.
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. at 776; Workman v. Tate, 958 F.2d at
166.
2

Although this Court disagrees with respondent’s claim that he has
made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of the
case on appeal, the Court will grant respondent a stay pending appeal.
Although petitioner may suffer injury from his continued confinement
pursuant to a conviction that this Court has found to be constitutionally
infirm, “it would be a waste of judicial resources for the appeal to proceed
in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, while simultaneously requiring the
State to grant relief to Petitioner.” Williams v. Booker, 715 F. Supp. 2d 756,
770 (E.D. Mich. 2010); rev’d on other grds, 454 F. App’x 475 (6th Cir.
2012).
Accordingly, the Court will grant respondent’s motion for a stay
pending appeal. (ECF # 13).
s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 30, 2019

3