United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE THE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE
Gershwin A. Drain United States District Judge.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
claims that he filed a motion for reconsideration with the
trial court on December 9, 2016, which was never adjudicated
by that court.
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).
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).
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).
has since filed an amended petition and numerous pleadings.
Respondent filed an answer to the petition, and petitioner
has filed a reply brief.
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).
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 ...