Daniels v. Gidley

Filing 21

ORDER (1) Denying Petitioner's Third Motion to Hold Petition in Abeyance (Dkt. 17 ) and (2) Denying Respondent's Motion to Vacate Order (Dkt. 20 ). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AARON DANIELS,
Petitioner,

Case No. 4:14-cv-11755
Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith

v.
LORI GIDLEY,
Respondent.
_______________________________________/
ORDER (1) DENYING PETITIONER’S THIRD MOTION TO HOLD PETITION IN
ABEYANCE (Dkt. 17) AND (2) DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO VACATE
ORDER (Dkt. 20)
Petitioner Aaron Daniels filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, raising the three claims that he presented to the state courts in his direct appeal. On
July 7, 2014, this Court entered an order holding the case in abeyance to allow Petitioner to present
an additional seven claims to the state courts in a post-conviction proceeding. See 7/7/2014 Order
(Dkt. 4).
Petitioner filed an amended petition on August 20, 2014 (Dkt. 7), erroneously claiming that
he exhausted his state court remedies with respect to his new claims and that his petition was ready
for review. The Court reopened the case to its active docket on November 6, 2014. See 11/6/2014
Order (Dkt. 8). Respondent filed a motion to vacate the order reopening the case (Dkt. 10),
correctly noting that Petitioner had not yet appealed the denial of his motion for relief from
judgment to the state appellate courts. Petitioner filed what he labeled a “Motion to Strike” (Dkt.
11), agreeing with Respondent. The Court granted the motion to vacate the order reopening the
case, and the case remained stayed. See 7/15/2015 Order (Dkt. 12).

Nothing occurred in the case for almost two years. Then, on April 20, 2017, Petitioner filed
a “Motion to Strike Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Reinstate” (Dkt. 14). Petitioner did
not clearly state the relief he sought in the motion, but the Court interpreted it as a request to reopen
the case. The Court ordered the case to be reopened and directed Petitioner to file an amended
petition and Respondent to file a responsive pleading. See 1/22/2018 Order (Dkt. 15).
In apparent response to this order, Petitioner filed a third motion to hold his petition in
abeyance so that he could attempt to exhaust his state court remedies with respect to his postconviction review proceeding claims (Dkt. 17).

Petitioner also filed an amended petition,

indicating clearly that he wishes to raise in this action all the claims he raised on direct appeal and
in his motion for relief from judgment (Dkt. 18).
On May 9, 2018, in answer to the motion and amended petition, Respondent filed a motion
to vacate the Court’s January 22, 2018 order (Dkt. 20). Respondent indicated that Petitioner never
appealed the denial of his motion for relief from judgment to the state appellate courts, and that
the case should continue to be held in abeyance pending Petitioner’s attempt to pursue state
appellate review. 5/9/2018 Mot. at 3-4. The motion also indicated, however, that the trial court
denied Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment in orders dated December 1, 2014, and April
21, 2016. Id. at 3. This assertion is confirmed by the trial court’s docket sheet.1
The time for appealing the trial court’s orders denying his motion for relief from judgment
(six months) has long since expired. See Mich. Ct. R. 6.509(A) and 7.205(G)(3). Nor may
Petitioner start over again in the trial court with a second motion for relief from judgment. See
Mich. Ct. R. 6.502(G). In other words, Petitioner no longer has a way to present his unexhausted

1

A federal district court is permitted to take judicial notice of information contained on another
court’s website. See, e.g., Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821, n.3 (E.D. Mich. 2004).

claims to the state courts. Reinstatement of the order holding the case in abeyance is therefore not
warranted. See, e.g., Love v. Burt, 2015 WL 3916098, *9-11 (E.D. Mich. June 25, 2015) (habeas
petitioner not entitled to stay where he did not have an available state court remedy); Rhines v.
Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005) (stay orders must “place reasonable time limits on a petitioner’s
trip to state court and back.”). Because Petitioner no longer has an available “trip to state court
and back,” there is no basis for staying the case.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to hold the case in abeyance (Dkt. 17) is denied.
Respondent’s motion to vacate the Court’s order of January 22, 2018 reopening the case (Dkt. 20)
is also denied. Respondent shall file a responsive pleading to Petitioner’s amended petition (Dkt.
18), along with the necessary Rule 5 material, within 60 days of this order. Petitioner may file a
reply within 60 days of service of the responsive pleading.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 29, 2018
Detroit, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail
addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 29, 2018.
s/Karri Sandusky
Case Manager