Johnson #236397 v. Woods

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 re 14 : Respondent's Motion 14 is DENIED; Petitioner to show cause within 28 days; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION MARK ANTHONY JOHNSON, Petitioner, Case No. 2:16-CV-16 v. HON. GORDON J. QUIST JEFFREY WOODS, Respondent. / ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Timothy Greeley’s December 13, 2016, Report and Recommendation recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied and that the Court order Petitioner to show cause why he is entitled to a stay of these proceedings. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties on December 13, 2016. No objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Therefore the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the December 13, 2016, Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is approved and adopted as the Opinion of the Court, and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order, Petitioner shall show cause why he is entitled to a stay of these proceedings in order to exhaust his unexhausted claims in state court. Petitioner must show: (1) good cause for failing to exhaust prior to filing his habeas petition; (2) that his unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless; and (3) that he has engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. If Petitioner fails to make the required showing or fails to file a timely response to this Order, the Court will review only Petitioner’s exhausted claims (Claims I and II). Alternatively, Petitioner may file an amended petition setting forth only his exhausted claims. Dated: January 6, 2017 /s/ Gordon J. Quist GORDON J. QUIST 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?