Searcy v. Palmer
ORDER GRANTING 10 Respondent's Motion for Supplemental Authority, GRANTING 11 Respondent's Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance, and Administratively Closing Case. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil No. 16-CV-13779
Honorable Terrence G. Berg
CARMEN D. PALMER,
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (DKT. 10), GRANTING
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE
(DKT. 11), AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE
Petitioner Derrico Searcy filed a pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for
second-degree murder and three counts of assault with intent to commit
murder. Searcy and co-defendant Darrell Ewing were tried before a
single jury in Wayne County Circuit Court. Co-defendant Ewing filed a
habeas corpus petition in 2015. On November 20, 2017, the Chief Judge
Denise Page Hood granted Ewing a conditional writ of habeas corpus on
the ground that an extraneous influence on the jury violated Ewing’s
right to a fair and impartial jury. See Ewing v. Horton, No. 15-cv-
10523, 2017 WL 5564603 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2017). Chief Judge
Hood’s opinion precipitated the filing of two motions in this case.
The first, Petitioner’s Motion for Supplemental Authority, asks
the Court to take note of Chief Judge Hood’s decision granting Ewing
habeas corpus relief. The Court will grant Petitioner’s motion. The
second is Respondent’s Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance. The State
appealed Chief Judge Hood’s decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals and the Court of Appeals’ docket shows that oral argument is
scheduled for October 2, 2018. See Ewing v Horton, No. 17-2485.
Respondent argues that, because Petitioner raises an extraneous
influence claim similar to Ewing’s, the Court should stay this
proceeding pending the Court of Appeals’ decision in Ewing v. Horton.
A district court has “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an
incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520
U.S. 681, 706 (1997), citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248,
254 (1936). A court may “find it ... efficient for its own docket and the
fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it,
pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the
case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863
(9th Cir. 1979). The Court of Appeals’ ruling in Ewing v. Horton will
directly address an issue raised in Petitioner’s case. A stay will avoid
duplicative litigation. Petitioner has not responded to the motion to
stay and, although a stay will delay disposition of this matter, the Court
anticipates a relatively short stay given that oral argument will take
place within less than a month.
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for
Supplemental Authority (Dkt. 10) and GRANTS Respondent’s Motion
to Hold Case in Abeyance (Dkt. 11). Respondent must notify the Court
within 7 DAYS after the mandate is issued in Ewing v. Horton, No. 172485. To avoid administrative difficulties, the Clerk of Court is directed
to close this case for statistical purposes only.
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 28, 2018
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on
September 28, 2018, using the CM/ECF system, which will send
notification to each party.
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?