Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lyons-Bey v. Campbell

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

January 24, 2018

DAVID MAURICE LYONS-BEY, Petitioner,
v.
SHERMAN CAMPBELL, Respondent,

         OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKTS. # 24, 34), THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DKT. # 25), THE RENEWED MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, FOR DISCOVERY, AND FOR RELEASE ON BOND (DKT. # 30), THE MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, (DKT. # 31), THE MOTION TO EXPEDITE THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DKT. # 33), AND THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWER (DKT. # 35).

          JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         David Maurice Lyons-Bey, (“petitioner), filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a number of motions. For the reasons that follow, the motions are DENIED.

         1. The motions for summary judgment and the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

         Petitioner filed two motions for summary judgment and a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

         Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sanders v. Freeman, 221 F.3d 846, 851 (6th Cir. 2000)(quoting Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)). The summary judgment rule applies to habeas proceedings. Harris v. Stegall, 157 F.Supp.2d 743, 746 (E.D. Mich. 2001)(citing to Hauck v. Mills, 941 F.Supp. 683, 686-687 (M.D. Tenn. 1996)). However, a federal district court should not enter a summary judgment in a habeas case if the pleadings or papers present a genuine issue of fact. United States ex. rel. Johnson v. De Robertis, 718 F.2d 209, 211 (7th Cir. 1983).

         In this case, respondent has filed an answer to petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he argues that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief. The Court cannot conclude at this time that there is no genuine issue of material fact.

         To the extent that petitioner is asking the Court to enter a default judgment based upon respondent's failure to file a timely answer, this Court is without power to grant petitioner a default judgment in this case, because a default judgment is unavailable in a habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the ground that state officials failed to file a timely response to the petition. Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 138 (6th Cir. 1970); Whitfield v. Martin, 157 F.Supp.2d 758, 761 (E.D. Mich. 2001). The motions are denied.

         2. The renewed motion for an evidentiary hearing, for discovery, and for bond.

         Petitioner filed a renewed motion for an evidentiary hearing, for discovery, and for release on bond.

         If a habeas petition is not dismissed at a previous stage in the proceeding, the judge, after the answer and the transcript and record of state court proceedings are filed, shall, upon a review of those proceedings and of the expanded record, if any, determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not required, the judge shall make such disposition of the petition as justice shall require. 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 8(a); Hence v. Smith, 49 F.Supp.2d 547, 549 (E.D. Mich. 1999)(Gadola, J.).

         When deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether such a hearing could enable the habeas petitioner to prove the petition's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the petitioner to federal habeas relief on his claim or claims. Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). “[B]ecause the deferential standards prescribed by § 2254 control whether to grant habeas relief, a federal court must take into account those standards in deciding whether an evidentiary hearing is appropriate.” Id. If the record refutes the habeas petitioner's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing. Id. Stated differently, a habeas petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims if they lack merit. See Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 459-60 (6th Cir. 2001).

         The renewed motion for an evidentiary hearing will be denied without prejudice because the Court has not yet reviewed the pleadings or the state court record. Without reviewing these materials, the Court is unable to determine whether an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's claims is needed. Following review of these materials, the Court will then determine whether an evidentiary hearing is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.