United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. #
221], THE AMENDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. # 222],
THE MOTION TO ALTER THE NUMBER OF INTERROGATORIES [Dkt. #
223], THE PRO PER SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. # 224], THE MOTION TO STRIKE [Dkt.
# 226], THE MOTION FOR DISCOVERY [Dkt. # 227], THE MOTION FOR
JOINDER [Dkt. # 228], THE MOTION FOR A DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
[Dkt. # 229], THE MOTION FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE [Dkt. #
230], AND THE MOTION FOR A SPECIAL MASTER [Dkt. # 232], AND
GRANTING THE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A BRIEF
[Dkt. # 220] AND THE MOTION TO EXPAND THE RECORD [Dkt. #
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14, 2014, this case was remanded by the United States Court
of Appeals from the Sixth Circuit for a determination of
whether petitioner's 1971 convictions, which this Court
had ordered expunged, were still being used by the Michigan
Department of Corrections (M.D.O.C.) to classify petitioner
and to determine his parole eligibility on his 1981
conviction. On July 18, 2014, the Federal Defender Office was
appointed to represent petitioner and briefing deadlines were
December 7, 2015, the Court granted the motion for discovery
and ordered the M.D.O.C. to turn over all parole board and
other correctional records pertaining to petitioner so that
counsel could determine whether petitioner's expunged
1971 convictions are being used to either classify petitioner
or determine his parole eligibility. On November 13, 2015,
petitioner's counsel received 6, 632 pages of material
from the M.D.O.C. The M.D.O.C., however, refused to turn over
certain documents which they claim are exempt from disclosure
under Michigan law. This Court ordered that the M.D.O.C. turn
over this information to petitioner's counsel.
Petitioner's counsel received a CD-Rom of this additional
information subsequent to the order.
counsel filed a second motion for discovery, which this Court
denied on October 27, 2016.
counsel has now filed two motions for reconsideration.
Petitioner has also filed several pro se motions for
discovery or to submit interrogatories, a motion for a
discovery conference, and a motion for a settlement
conference, which are construed as motions for
reconsideration of the Court's previous order to deny
additional discovery. Petitioner has also filed a motion to
strike, a motion for joinder of parties, and a motion for a
special master. The Court denies these motions. Petitioner
has also filed motions for an extension of time to file his
brief and to expand the record. These motions will be
Court will deny petitioner's motions for reconsideration
of the order denying additional discovery. U.S. Dist.Ct.
Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for
reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration should be
granted if the movant demonstrates a palpable defect by which
the court and the parties have been misled and that a
different disposition of the case must result from a
correction thereof. Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 340
F.Supp.2d 773, 774 (E.D. Mich. 2004). A motion for
reconsideration which merely presents “the same issues
ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication, ” shall be denied. Id.
motions for reconsideration will be 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 request
for additional discovery.
has also filed a motion to strike the respondent's
pleadings as scandalous because they contain false and
misleading information that petitioner's parole was
revoked “for a mix of alcohol, children, nudity, and
Civ. P. 12(f) indicates that pleadings can be stricken if
they contain “immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.” The Parole Board's reasons for revoking
petitioner's parole may be relevant to resolution of
petitioner's claim that the Parole Board is using his
expunged criminal convictions to deny him parole, thus, the
Court denies the motion to strike the pleadings.
has filed a motion to join the State of Michigan, the
Michigan Parole Board, and the Department of Corrections as
parties to this petition.
only proper respondent in a habeas case is the habeas
petitioner's custodian, which in the case of an
incarcerated habeas petitioner would be the warden of the
facility where the petitioner is incarcerated. See
Edwards v. Johns, 450 F.Supp.2d 755, 757 (E.D. Mich.
2006); See also Rule 2(a), 28 foll. U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner's warden is already named as the respondent in
this action. It is unnecessary to add the additional parties
to the case. The motion for joinder is denied.
has also filed a motion for the appointment of a special
master. 28 U.S.C. § 2243 does not authorize the
appointment of a Special Master in habeas corpus cases.
See Payne v. Wingo, 442 F.2d 1192 (6th Cir.1971).
The motion to appoint a special master is denied.
filed a motion for an extension of time to file his
supplemental brief. In light of the additional time needed to
adjudicate the motions herein, the Court grants ...