Settle v. Phillips (ASH)
Filing
19
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO MODIFY RESPONDENT AND SEND FORM, DENYING MOTION FOR STAY AS MOOT, AND GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND PETITION 16 18 Motion to. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 9/25/19. (skc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
MIKE SETTLE,
Petitioner,
v.
MIKE PARRIS,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:18-cv-1010-STA-jay
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO MODIFY RESPONDENT AND SEND FORM,
DENYING MOTION FOR STAY AS MOOT,
AND
GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
Petitioner Mike Settle has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition (the “Petition”), pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 2.) Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to stay (ECF No. 16)
and motion to amend the Petition (ECF No. 18). In his motion to stay, he asks that the Court
stay proceedings in this case pending the resolution of his state court claim that the prosecution
withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In his motion to
amend, he represents that he has now exhausted his Brady claim, and therefore wishes to amend
the Petition to add the claim. In light of the allegation that the claim has been exhausted, the
motion to stay is DENIED as moot. Because Respondent Mike Parris 1 has not yet responded to
the Petition, the motion to amend is GRANTED. Petitioner shall file an amended petition on the
Court’s form within twenty-eight days of entry of this order. He is advised that he should
present in the amended petition all claims that he wishes to assert, and that the amended petition
1
The Clerk is DIRECTED to substitute Mike Parris for Shawn Phillips as Respondent.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
1
will supersede the Petition. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Petitioner the Court’s official §
2241 form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: September 25, 2019
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?