United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR A COPY OF THE COMPLETE
FILE/RECORD (ECF NO. 356), DENYING THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 357), DENYING AS MOOT THE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF
NO. 358), DENYING THE RENEWED MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL (ECF NO. 359), CONSTRUING THE MOTION FOR COURT
CERTIFICATION AS A TIMELY FILED NOTICE OF APPEAL AND
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO TRANSFER THE MOTION (ECF
NO. 365) TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT, DENYING AS MOOT THE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL (ECF NO. 365), GRANTING THE MOTION
TO WITHDRAW THE HABEAS PETITION (ECF NO. 369), DENYING AS
MOOT THE MOTION TAKE ADJUDICATIVE ACTION ON STRICKEN MOTIONS
(ECF NO. 371), DENYING THE MOTION TO SANCTION RESPONDENT (ECF
NO. 373), GRANTING IN PART RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 375), AND DENYING THE MOTION TO STRIKE
THE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 378).
Arthur J. Tarnow United States District Judge
before the Court are numerous motions filed by petitioner and
30, 2004, this Court granted a writ of habeas corpus to
Petitioner, on the ground that he had been deprived of his
right to appeal and his Sixth Amendment right to appellate
counsel on his 1971 convictions, because the state trial
court failed to advise Petitioner that he had a right to
appeal and had a right to the appointment of appellate
counsel if he was indigent. See Ward v.
Wolfenbarger, 323 F.Supp.2d 818, 828-30 (E.D. Mich.
2004). The Court conditioned the granting of the writ upon
respondent taking immediate action to afford Petitioner an
appeal of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals with the
assistance of appellate counsel. Id.
September 14, 2004, the Court granted Petitioner's motion
for reconsideration and ordered that an unconditional writ of
habeas corpus issue in this case. See Ward v.
Wolfenbarger, 340 F.Supp.2d 773 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The
Court declined to order Petitioner's release from
incarceration on these convictions, because the sentences on
his 1971 convictions had expired. Instead, the Court
concluded that Petitioner was entitled to have these 1971
convictions and all of the effects stemming from them
expunged from his record. Id. at 776-77. The Court
vacated the judgment of conviction against Petitioner for the
offenses of possession of LSD and possession of marijuana
from the Huron County Circuit Court from January 20, 1971 and
ordered that the record of conviction be expunged.
Id. The Court further ordered the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Huron County, Michigan to forward a copy of
this Court's order to any person or agency that was
notified of Petitioner's arrest or conviction involved
with these offenses. Id.
August 7, 2019, following a remand by the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, this Court modified the
terms of the grant of the writ of habeas corpus to include
the following conditions:
The State of Michigan shall remove all references to the
expunged 1971 convictions from any and all records submitted
to the Michigan Parole Board. The Michigan Department of
Corrections shall also remove any references to the expunged
1971 convictions from any records regarding Petitioner's
security and institutional classification. The M.D.O.C. shall
reassign Petitioner an “A” prefix to his
institutional record. A certificate of compliance shall be
filed with this Court within 30 days of the receipt of this
v. Wolfenbarger, No. 03-CV-72701-DT, 2019 WL 3714517, at
* 4 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2019).
September 6, 2019, respondent filed a notice of compliance
with the Court's order. (ECF No. 364).
The motion for a complete copy of the file/record (ECF No.
356) is DENIED.
has requested the Court to provide him with the entire court
file in his case, going back to 2004.
U.S.C. § 2250 states:
“If on any application for a writ of habeas corpus an
order has been made permitting the petitioner to prosecute
the application in forma pauperis, the clerk of any court of
the United States shall furnish to the petitioner without
cost certified copies of such documents or parts of the
record on file in his office as may be required by order of
the judge before whom the application is pending.”
today, there are currently 381 docket entries in
petitioner's case, going back to when he initially filed
his habeas petition in 2003. The Court will deny
petitioner's motion for the entire record, because
petitioner has not specified which of the documents or
pleadings in the record are needed by him, particularly when
this Court has granted petitioner all the relief he is
entitled to in this case. A “blanket and noncommittal
request” for documents by a habeas petitioner is
insufficient to enable a federal court to make a
determination of necessity pursuant to § 2250. See
Cassidy v. United States, 304 F.Supp. 864, 867 (E.D Mo.
1969); See also Morton v. Warren, No. 2008 WL
4386840, * 5 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 24, 2008); See also United
States v. Chambers, 788 F.Supp. 334, 338 (E.D. Mich.
1992)(federal criminal defendant not entitled to production
of trial transcripts on his “bald assertion” that
he needed them to prepare § 2255 post-conviction motion
to vacate sentence). In light of the conclusory nature of
petitioner's motion for the production of the entire
record, the motion is denied. Id.
The motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 357) is
has moved for reconsideration of this Court's opinion and
order modifying the terms of the grant of the writ of habeas
corpus. Petitioner in his motion and in several supplemental
briefs argues that this Court should have ordered his release
on his 1981 possession with intent to deliver over 650 grams
of cocaine conviction for which he is currently incarcerated.
Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a
motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration
should be granted if the movant demonstrates a palpable
defect by which the court and the parties have been misled
and that a different disposition of the case must result from
a correction thereof. Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 340
F.Supp.2d at 774; Hence v. Smith,49 F.Supp.2d 547,
550-51 (E.D. Mich. 1999 (citing L.R. 7.1(g)(3)). A
motion for reconsideration which merely presents “the