Lyons-Bey v. Campbell

Filing 22

OPINION AND ORDER granting 15 Motion to Amend; denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 20 Motion to Extend Time; granting 21 Motion for an Extension of Time. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID MAURICE LYONS-BEY,
Case No. 5:16-CV-13797
HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Petitioner,
v.
SHERMAN CAMPBELL,
Respondent,
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (2) GRANTING THE MOTION
TO EXTEND PETITIONER TIME TO FILE A MEMORANDUM OF LAW, (3)
GRANTING RESPONDENT AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER
TO THE ORIGINAL AND AMENDED PETITIONS, AND (4) DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTIONS
David Maurice Lyons-Bey, (“petitioner), filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
signed an Order of Responsive Pleading, requiring the respondent to file an answer by
May 1, 2017.
On October 27, 2016, this Court denied petitioner’s motions for an evidentiary
hearing, for discovery, for bond pending appeal, to expedite his request for an evidentiary
hearing, and to remand to the state court for a new appeal.
Petitioner has filed a motion to amend the petition for writ of habeas corpus and a
motion for an extension of time to file a memorandum of law in support of his amended

1

petition. These motions are GRANTED. Petitioner has sixty (60) days from the date of
this order to file a memorandum of law.
Respondent filed a motion for a stay of the responsive pleading order, which is
basically a motion for an extension of time to file a response to the petition. Respondent
is GRANTED sixty (60) days from the date of this order, or the date of the receipt of
petitioner’s memorandum of law, whichever is later, to file an answer to the original and
amended habeas petitions. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October
27, 2016 order is DENIED.
1. The motion to amend the petition is GRANTED.
The decision to grant or deny a motion to amend a habeas petition is within the
discretion of the district court. Clemmons v. Delo, 177 F. 3d 680, 686 (8th Cir. 1999);
citing to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 15. Notice and substantial prejudice to the opposing party are
the critical factors in determining whether an amendment to a habeas petition should be
granted. Coe v. Bell, 161 F. 3d 320, 341-342 (6th Cir. 1998). A motion to amend a
habeas petition may be denied when it has been unduly delayed and when allowing the
motion would prejudice the nonmovant. Smith v. Angelone, 111 F. 3d 1126, 1134 (4th
Cir. 1997)(internal citations ommitted). However, delay by itself is not sufficient to deny
a motion to amend. Coe, 161 F. 3d at 342.
The Court will permit petitioner to amend his habeas petition. Petitioner’s
proposed amended habeas petition should be granted because it advances new claims that
may have arguable merit. See e.g. Braden v. United States, 817 F.3d 926, 930 (6th Cir.
2

2016). Additionally, because petitioner has filed this motion to amend the petition before
respondent filed an answer to the original petition, the motion to amend should be
granted. See Anderson v. U.S., 39 F. App’x. 132, 136 (6th Cir. 2002).
2. The motion for an extension of time to file a memorandum of law is
GRANTED.
Petitioner requests a sixty day extension of time to file a memorandum of law.
A habeas petitioner is permitted to assert his or her claims in a supporting brief.
See Dye v. Hofbauer, 546 U.S. 1, 4 (2005). The Court will therefore grant petitioner a
sixty day extension of time to file a brief in this matter in support of his habeas petition.
3. Respondent is GRANTED an extension of time to file an answer.
Respondent requests an extension of time to file an answer to the original and
amended habeas petitions.
A federal court has discretion in extending the time for a state to file a response to
a habeas corpus petition. See Whitfield v. Martin, 157 F. Supp. 2d 758, 761 (E.D. Mich.
2001). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases gives a federal court discretion
to take into account various factors such as the respondent’s workload and availability of
transcripts before determining the time when an answer must be made. See Kramer v.
Jenkins, 108 F.R.D. 429, 432 (N.D. Ill. 1985). This Court finds that sixty days from the
receipt of petitioner’s memorandum of law or the date of this order, whichever comes
later, is a reasonable time in which to request a response in this case, taking into account
the complexity of the petition, the ability of the respondent to acquire the relevant

3

documentary evidence, and the current caseload of the Attorney General’s Office. See
Hudson v. Helman, 948 F. Supp. 810, 811 (C.D. Ill. 1996).
4. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Petitioner moves for reconsideration of this Court’s October 27, 2016 order
denying his motions for an evidentiary hearing, for discovery, for bond, for an expedited
hearing, and to remand to the state court for a new appeal.
U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (g) allows a party to file a motion for
reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues
already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be
granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D.
Mich. 2001); See also Williams v. McGinnis, 192 F. Supp. 2d 757, 759 (E.D. Mich.
2002).
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is denied, because petitioner is merely
presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication, when the Court denied petitioner’s motions. Hence v. Smith, 49 F.
Supp. 2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) The motion to amend the petition (Doc. 15) is GRANTED.
(2) The motion for an extension of time to file a memorandum of law
(Doc. 20) is GRANTED. Petitioner shall file his memorandum of law
within 60 days of this order.
4

(3) Respondent’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 21) is
GRANTED. Respondent shall file an answer within sixty days from
the later of the date of of this order or the receipt of petitioner’s
memorandum of law.
(4) The motion for reconsideration (Doc. # 16) is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge

Date: April 28, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
of record on this date, April 28, 2017, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

5