United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER RESOLVING PENDING MOTIONS
TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jessie Green filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed an answer
to the petition.
the Court are several motions. For the reasons below, the
Court grants Petitioner's Motions to Amend (ECF Nos. 10,
11) and Petitioner's Motion to Expand the Record (ECF No.
12), denies as moot Petitioner's Motion for Production of
Documents (ECF No. 14), and denies Petitioner's Motion to
Strike (ECF No. 15) and Petitioner's Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 17).
Motions to Amend
requests a change of caption and change of address because he
has now been moved to the Lakeland Correctional Facility. ECF
No. 10. The Court orders that the caption in this case be
amended to reflect that the proper respondent in this case is
now Noah Nagy, the warden of the prison where Petitioner is
currently incarcerated. See Edwards Johns, 450
F.Supp.2d 755, 757 (E.D. Mich. 2006); See also Rule
2(a), 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
next filed a motion to amend the petition for writ of habeas
corpus to add a claim that the photographic show-up procedure
was unduly suggestive, leading to a tainted identification.
ECF No. 11.
motion is granted because he seeks to add a new claim that
may have merit. See e.g. Braden v. United States,
817 F.3d 926, 930 (6th Cir. 2016).
Court also grants Petitioner an extension of time to file a
memorandum of law in support of his additional claim. A
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 support of his
amended habeas petition.
shall have sixty days from the date that the memorandum of
law in support of the amended petition is filed, or the date
that the period for filing the memorandum has expired,
whichever is later, to file a supplemental answer to the
amended petition. See Stewart v. Angelone, 186186
F.R.D. 342, 344 (E.D. Va. 1999); Rules Governing § 2254
Cases, Rule 4.
Motion to Expand the Record
moved to expand the record to include the exhibits that he
attached to his original petition.
7(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases indicates that
if a habeas petition is not summarily dismissed, the district
court judge “may direct the record be expanded by the
parties by the inclusion of additional materials relevant to
the determination of the merits of the petition.” A
federal district court judge may employ a variety of measures
to avoid needing an evidentiary hearing in a habeas case,
including the direction to expand the record to include
evidentiary materials that may resolve the factual dispute.
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 81-82 (1977).
The decision whether to expand a habeas record is within the
sound discretion of the district court. See West v.
Bell, 550 F.3d 542, 551 (6th Cir. 2008). In addition,
the habeas corpus rules require respondents to attach the
relevant portions of the transcripts of the state court
proceedings, if available, and the court may also order, on
its own motion, or upon the Petitioner's request, that
further portions of the transcripts or other evidence be
furnished. Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 653 (6th
Cir. 2002); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 5.
present case, Petitioner requests that the Court expand the
record to include materials which may support his claims.
Because this evidence may help resolve any factual disputes
in this case, the Court grants Petitioner's motion.
Motion for ...