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.

Lyle v. Burke

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

May 28, 2019

ROGER LYLE, Petitioner,
v.
LUELLA BURKE, Respondent,

          OPINION & ORDER (1) DENYING THE MOTION TO REOPEN, THE RULE 60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND THE MOTION TO COMPEL (Dkt. 71) AND DENYING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 72)

          Mark A. Goldsmith, United States District Judge.

         Before the Court is Petitioner's pro se motion to reopen, for Rule 60(b) relief from judgment, and to compel, in which Petitioner seeks to reinstate his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner again seeks to challenge his 1984 convictions for first-degree felony murder and assault with intent to commit murder. Petitioner also filed a related motion for summary judgment. Petitioner seeks to re-open his third habeas petition, which was denied on the merits.

         For the following reasons, the motions are denied.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner has filed several habeas petitions challenging his 1984 convictions for first-degree felony murder and assault with intent to commit murder.

         Petitioner's first petition was dismissed without prejudice on exhaustion grounds. Lyle v. Foltz, No. 86-74289-DT (E.D. Mich. May 29, 1987). Petitioner's second habeas petition was denied on the merits. Lyle v. Jabe, No. 89-71785-DT (E.D. Mich. Apr. 23, 1990); appeal dismissed No. 90-1563/1586 (6th Cir. June 6, 1990); cert. denied 498 U.S. 906 (1990). The third habeas petition, which petitioner seeks to reopen, was also denied on the merits. Lyle v. Burke, No. 96-70653 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 1997)(Gilmore, J.); appeal dismissed No. 97-2125 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 1998); rehearing en banc denied (6th Cir. June 26, 1998); cert. denied 525 U.S. 899 (1998).

         In 1999. Petitioner filed a motion to reinstate his third habeas petition, as well as several other motions. Petitioner's motions were construed as a second or successive habeas petition and transferred to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b)(3)(A). The Sixth Circuit dismissed the case for want of prosecution because petitioner failed to attach copies of the opinions or reports in his prior habeas cases to his motion. In Re Lyles, No. 00-1398 (6th Cir. May 26, 2000).

         The Sixth Circuit has three times denied Petitioner permission to file a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus. In re Lyle, No. 08-1714 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2008); In re Lyles, No. 11-1288 (6th Cir. Aug. 17, 2011); In re Lyles, No. 14-1463 (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 2014).[1]

         In 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to reinstate the petition to the Court's active docket. This motion was considered a successive collateral challenge to petitioner's 1984 conviction and was transferred to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The Sixth Circuit denied petitioner permission to file a successive habeas petition. In re Lyles, No. 14-2522 (6th Cir. Apr. 27, 2015).

         In 2015, petitioner filed yet another motion to reinstate the petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Court's active docket, which was transferred on November 12, 2015 to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The Sixth Circuit again denied petitioner permission to file a successive habeas petition. In re Lyles, No. 15-2397 (6th Cir. Sept. 1, 2016).

         Petitioner has once again filed two motions, in which he once again seeks to reopen his 1996 habeas petition in order to challenge his 1984 conviction.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Petitioner filed several prior petitions for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1984 convictions for first-degree murder and assault with intent to murder. Petitioner has been denied habeas relief twice and has been denied permission numerous times by the Sixth Circuit to file a successive habeas petition.

         An individual seeking to file a second or successive habeas petition must first ask the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641 (1998). Congress has vested in the court of appeals a screening function that the district court would have performed otherwise. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996). Under the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a federal district court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a successive post-conviction motion or petition for writ of habeas corpus in the absence of an order from the court of appeals ...


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.