Jackson v. McCullick

Filing 17

ORDER SATISFYING 14 Order to Show Cause. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Samuel Leshawn Jackson,
Petitioner,
v.

Mark McCullick,

Defendant.
__________________________/

Case No. 17-10906
Hon. Judith E. Levy
Mag. Judge Patricia T. Morris

ORDER SATISFYING SHOW CAUSE
On October 29, 2019, Petitioner was given ninety days to file a
motion for relief from judgment in state court and was ordered to notify
the Court within seven days of filing that motion. (ECF No. 13,
PageID.1028.) The Court issued an order on February 11, 2020 for
Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed
for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the terms of the Court’s October
29, 2019 Order. (ECF No. 14) On February 25, 2020, Petitioner
informed the Court that he filed a motion for relief from judgment on
February 12, 2020. (ECF No. 15, PageID.1033.) Petitioner explains that
he had good cause for the delay, as he relied on assistance from a Legal
Writer’s Program with limited capacity. Id.

On March 2, 2020, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Show Cause for
Failure to Comply with the October 29, 2019 Order.” (ECF No. 16.)
Petitioner’s motion further explains the reasons for delay. (ECF No. 16,
PageID.1038). Petitioner moves for the Court to waive his
noncompliance. (Id. at PageID.1039.) Because the Court finds that
Petitioner had good cause for his failure to comply with the precise
terms of the October 29, 2019 Order, and Petitioner has now filed a
motion for relief from judgment in state court, the Court will grant
Petitioner’s motion and vacate the Order to Show Cause.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. The order to show
cause has been satisfied and is hereby VACATED. The case will remain
STAYED. Pursuant to the Court’s October 29, 2019 Order, Petitioner
may refile his habeas petition, using the same caption and case number,
within ninety days after the conclusion of the state-court post-conviction
proceedings. Petitioner is free at that time to file an amended habeas
petition which contains any newly exhausted claims. Upon receipt of
Petitioner’s refiled habeas petition following exhaustion of state
remedies, the Court will lift the stay.
Failure to comply with any of the conditions of the stay could

result in the dismissal of the habeas petition. Calhoun v. Bergh, 769
F.3d 409, 411 (6th Cir. 2014).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: March 5, 2020
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, March 5, 2020,
using the Electronic Court Filing system and/or first-class U.S. mail.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager