United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
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
CORBETT O'MEARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.
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 petition. These
motions are GRANTED. Petitioner has sixty (60) days from the
date of this order to file a memorandum of law.
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.
The motion to amend the petition is GRANTED.
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.
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. 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).
The motion for an extension of time to file a memorandum of
law is GRANTED.
requests a sixty day extension of time to file a memorandum
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.
Respondent is GRANTED an extension of time to file an
requests an extension of time to file an answer to the