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.

Jackson v. Parish

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

September 20, 2019

DOUGLASJACKSON, Petitioner,
v.
LES PARISH, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE

          Gershwin A. Drain United States District Judge.

         Douglas Jackson, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility in Baraga, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions and sentences for three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.520(b), one count of assault with intent to do great bodily harm, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.84, and one count of unlawful imprisonment, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.349b.

         For the reasons that follow, the Court holds the petition in abeyance and stays the proceedings under the terms outlined in this opinion to permit petitioner to complete state post-conviction proceedings in the state courts where he has been attempting to exhaust additional claims. The Court administratively closes the case.

         I. Background

         Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court. Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on appeal, although the case was remanded for re-sentencing. People v. Jackson, No. 295994, 2011 WL 1519654 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2011); lv. den. 490 Mich. 911, 805 N.W.2d 191 (2011). Following re-sentencing, petitioner’s sentence was affirmed on appeal. People v. Jackson, No. 308329, 2013 WL 4746759 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2013); lv. den. 495 Mich. 935, 843 N.W.2d 209 (2014).

         Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which was held in abeyance to permit petitioner to return to the state courts to exhaust additional claims which had not yet been presented to the state courts. ECF No.5.

         Petitioner attempted to file a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with the state trial court, but his initial motion was returned by the trial court because it exceeded fifty pages. People v. Jackson, No. 09-003770-01 (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct. Jan. 21, 2016). Petitioner subsequently filed another motion for relief from judgment and a subsequent motion to amend the motion for relief from judgment. The trial court judge denied petitioner post-conviction relief on several grounds, including the belief that at a least a portion of the motion for relief from judgment constituted a prohibited successive motion for relief from judgment within the meaning of M.C.R. 6.502(G). People v. Jackson, No. 09-003770-01 (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct. Nov. 21, 2016).

         Petitioner claims that he filed a motion for reconsideration with the trial court on December 9, 2016, which was never adjudicated by that court.

         The Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s subsequently filed post-conviction appeal because it was untimely filed. People v. Jackson, No. 342075 Order (Mich. Ct. App. March 29, 2018).

         The trial judge subsequently entered an order granting a correction to the register of actions as had been ordered by the Michigan Court of Appeals. People v. Jackson, No. 09-003770-01 (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct. Jan. 11, 2017).

         Petitioner filed a motion for legal assistance to assist him with filing an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court following the dismissal of his appeal by the Michigan Court of Appeals on March 29, 2018. This Court denied petitioner’s request, in part because the fifty-six-day deadline for filing an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court had expired. This Court believed, based on petitioner’s motion, that he no longer had any post-conviction remedies remaining in the state courts. This Court found that the petition was now ripe for consideration, permitted petitioner to reopen his case to the Court’s active docket and gave him an opportunity to file an amended habeas petition. Jackson v. Parish, No. 15-CV-11622, 2018 WL 3020463 (E.D. Mich. June 15, 2018).

         Petitioner has since filed an amended petition and numerous pleadings. Respondent filed an answer to the petition, and petitioner has filed a reply brief.

         While petitioner’s case was again pending before this Court, petitioner had a post-conviction appeal that had been filed with the Michigan Court of Appeals. The appeal was denied because petitioner had failed to demonstrate entitlement to an application of any of the exceptions to the general rule that a movant may not appeal the denial of a successive motion for relief from judgment. People v. Jackson, No. 342075 Order (Mich. Ct. App. March 12, 2019).

         This Court believed, in light of all of the pleadings received by petitioner and respondent, that the petition was now ripe for a merits review. In preparing to adjudicate the merits of the petition, this Court learned that the Michigan Supreme Court, on September 10, 2019, remanded the matter to the ...


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.