Searcy v. Palmer

Filing 12

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)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DERRICO SEARCY, Petitioner, Civil No. 16-CV-13779 Honorable Terrence G. Berg v. CARMEN D. PALMER, Respondent. _______________________________/ 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 2 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 3 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. s/A. Chubb Case Manager 4

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?