Jackson v. Floyd
OPINION AND ORDER Granting Petitioner's Motion 7 to Reissue the Opinion and Order, Directing the Clerk of the Court to Mail a Copy of the Opinion and Order Holding in Abeyance the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Administratively Closing the Case and A copy of the Order to Petitioner and Granting Petitioner an Extension of Time to File His Post-Conviction Motion for Relief from Judgment With the State Court. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil No. 2:21-CV-12200
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
REISSUE THE OPINION AND ORDER (ECF No. 7), DIRECTING THE
CLERK OF THE COURT TO MAIL A COPY OF THE OPINION AND
ORDER HOLDING INABEYANCE THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE
(ECF No. 6) AND A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO PETITIONER, AND
GRANTING PETITIONER AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE HIS
POST-CONVICTION MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT WITH
THE STATE COURT
Jammal Jackson, (“Petitioner”), filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 22, 2021, the petition was held
in abeyance to permit Petitioner to return to the state courts to exhaust additional
claims. Petitioner was given ninety days to file his post-conviction motion with the
state trial court. The Court administratively closed the case.
Petitioner filed a motion for reissuance of the Court’s opinion and order.
Petitioner claims he never received a copy of the opinion and order and only learned
on November 4, 2021 that the case had been held in abeyance.
For the reasons that follow, the Court orders the Clerk of the Court to reissue
the September 22, 2021 opinion and order holding the petition in abeyance and mail
a copy of that opinion and this order to Petitioner. Petitioner is GRANTED a ninety
day extension of time to file his post-conviction motion for relief from judgment
with the state court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) allows a court to reissue an opinion and order where a
party to the litigation did not receive timely notice of the judgment or order. See e.g.
Williams v. Arn, 654 F. Supp. 241, 246 (N.D. Ohio 1987). The opinion and order of
September 22, 2021 holding the petition in abeyance is vacated; the Court reinstates
the opinion entered on that date nunc pro tunc as of the date of this order. See Id., at
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of the Opinion and Order
Holding in Abeyance The Petition For A Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Administratively Closing the Case (ECF No. 6) and a copy of this order by firstclass mail to Petitioner.
Petitioner is granted a ninety day extension of time to file his motion for relief
from judgment with the state trial court. A federal district court has the power to
extend the stay of a habeas petition, particularly where the respondent does not
oppose the extension of the stay. See e.g. Roberts v. Norris, 415 F.3d 816, 819 (8th
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That:
(1) The motion for reissuance of the order (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED.
The Opinion and Order Holding the Opinion and Order Holding In
Abeyance the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Administratively Closing the Case dated September 22, 2021 is
vacated and is reinstated nunc pro tunc as of the date of this order.
(2) The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of the Opinion and Order
Holding In Abeyance the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Administratively Closing the Case (ECF No. 6) and a copy of this
order to Petitioner via first-class mail.
(3) Petitioner is GRANTED a ninety day extension of time from the
date of this order to initiate post-conviction proceedings in the state
courts. Petitioner is still required to return to federal court within
ninety days of completing the exhaustion of state court postconviction remedies.
s/ Victoria A. Roberts
HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?