Hairston v. Campbell
ORDER Granting 10 Request for Extension of Time filed by David Hairston, Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DAVID LAVALE HAIRSTON,
Civil No. 5:16-CV-13123
HONORABLE JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A THIRD
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE HIS POST-CONVICTION MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT WITH THE STATE COURT
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
in which he sought relief from his state court convictions. On September 1, 2016, this
Court held the petition for writ of habeas corpus in abeyance to permit petitioner to return
to the state courts to exhaust additional claims which had not yet been presented to the
state courts. The stay was conditioned on petitioner initiating his state post-conviction
remedies within ninety days of receiving this Court’s order and returning to federal court
within ninety days of completing his state court post-conviction proceedings.
Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file his post-conviction motion
for relief from judgment with the state courts, which was granted on November 29, 2016.
Petitioner filed a second request for an additional extension of time to file his postconviction motion in the state courts, which was granted on February 23, 2017.
Petitioner has filed a third motion for an extension of time to file his postconviction motion, which is GRANTED.
Petitioner claims that there has been a continued delay by the state court in
providing him with discovery so that he can prepare his post-conviction motion.
Petitioner requests an additional extension of time so that he can obtain these documents
to file his post-conviction motion.
Petitioner is granted a ninety day extension of time to file his motion for relief
from judgment with the state trial court. A federal district court has the power to extend
the stay of a habeas petition, particularly where the respondent does not oppose the
extension of the stay. See e.g. Roberts v. Norris, 415 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2005).
Petitioner did all that he could reasonably do to file his state post-conviction motion for
relief from judgment on time, but was “prevented in some extraordinary way” from filing
the motion with the state courts on time. Accordingly, an extension of time should be
granted to Petitioner. See Schillereff v. Quarterman, 304 F. App’x. 310, 314 (5th Cir.
IT IS ORDERED that the request for an extension of time [Dkt. # 10] is
GRANTED. Petitioner may file a motion for relief from judgment with the state court
within ninety (90) days of receipt of this Court’s order. If he fails to file a motion or
notify the Court that he has done so, the Court will lift the stay and will reinstate the
original petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Court’s active docket and will proceed to
adjudicate only those claims that were raised in the original petition.
If petitioner files a motion for relief from judgment, he shall notify this Court that
such motion papers have been filed in state court. The case shall then be held in abeyance
pending petitioner’s exhaustion of the claims.
After petitioner fully exhausts his new claims, petitioner is ORDERED to file an
amended Petition that includes the new claims within ninety days after the
conclusion of his state court post-conviction proceedings, along with a motion to lift
the stay. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of his case.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: July 13, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
of record on this date, July 13, 2017, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.
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?