United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
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).
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.
Petitioner has filed a number of motions. For the reasons
that follow, the motions are DENIED.
The motions for summary judgment and the motion for judgment
on the pleadings.
filed two motions for summary judgment and a motion for
judgment on the pleadings.
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).
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.
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.
The renewed motion for an evidentiary hearing, for discovery,
and for bond.
filed a renewed motion for an evidentiary hearing, for
discovery, and for release on bond.
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.
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).
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 ...