Searcy v. Palmer
Filing
22
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER Regarding Limited Conditional Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (AChu)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DERRICO D. SEARCY,
4:16-cv-13779
Petitioner,
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
v.
CARMEN D. PALMER,
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
REGARDING LIMITED
CONDITIONAL WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Respondent.
On May 31, 2019, this Court conditionally granted the writ of
habeas corpus filed by Petitioner Derrico D. Searcy on his Sixth
Amendment jury-misconduct claim. See ECF No. 19. All proceedings
related to Petitioner’s remaining claims were stayed while an evidentiary
hearing on the jury-misconduct claim was completed in Wayne County
Circuit Court. Petitioner’s state-court co-defendant, Darrell Ewing, is
litigating a closely related habeas case, Case No. 15-cv-10523, assigned
to the Honorable Chief Judge Denise Page Hood. Mr. Ewing and the
petitioner in this case, Mr. Searcy, were both granted conditional habeas
relief in the form of the evidentiary hearing that recently concluded in
Wayne County Circuit Court. The parties now await the result of that
evidentiary hearing from the state court.
1
Chief Judge Hood recently issued an order in Case No. 15-cv-10523
pointing out that the state court complies with the conditional grant of
habeas corpus relief by holding the evidentiary hearing and then deciding
whether or not the petitioner is entitled to relief. See ECF No. 19 in Case
No. 15-cv-10523. This Court of course concurs. The case is before the state
court, which must now determine whether Mr. Ewing and Mr. Searcy are
entitled to relief. Because of the interrelatedness of Mr. Ewing’s case
before Chief Judge Hood and Mr. Searcy’s petition before this Court, a
copy of Chief Judge Hood’s Order of October 16, 2019 is attached to this
Order and shall be docketed in this case.
Dated: October 24, 2019
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?