Hill v. Bergh

Filing 11

OPINION and ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

Download PDF
-PJK Hill v. Bergh Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION NAYVON HILL, #194207, Petitioner, v. DAVID BURGH, Respondent. / OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Nayvon Hill's motion to voluntarily dismiss his pending petition for a writ of habeas corpus so that he may return to the state courts to pursue additional challenges to his state criminal proceedings. The Court previously denied Petitioner's motion to hold the case in abeyance pending the exhaustion of additional claims concerning prosecutorial and judicial misconduct and the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel. Given that Petitioner seeks to exhaust additional constitutional issues in the state courts and given that he has sufficient time to do so and comply with the one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas actions, dismissal of the present petition is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for voluntary dismissal is GRANTED and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This case is closed. Should Petitioner wish to seek federal habeas relief following the exhaustion of state CASE NO. 2:10-CV-12977 HONORABLE JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA 1 Dockets.Justia.com court remedies, he must file a new habeas petition in federal court within the time remaining on the one-year period of limitations. s/John Corbett O'Meara United States District Judge Date: September 22, 2010 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, September 22, 2010, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail. s/William Barkholz Case Manager 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?