Midgyett v. Jackson, 17-cv-13846. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20190613c32
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO HOLD RESPONDENT IN DEFAULT (Doc. 9) AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO MAIL A COPY OF THE RESPONSE TO PETITIONER AVERN COHN , District Judge . This is a pro se habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. 2241 and 2254. Petitioner Gregory Midgyett challenges his state court convictions for second-degree murder and three weapon offenses. Before the Court is Petitioner's motion to hold respondent Shane Jackson in default for allegedly failing to file a timely respons
Summary: ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO HOLD RESPONDENT IN DEFAULT (Doc. 9) AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO MAIL A COPY OF THE RESPONSE TO PETITIONER AVERN COHN , District Judge . This is a pro se habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. 2241 and 2254. Petitioner Gregory Midgyett challenges his state court convictions for second-degree murder and three weapon offenses. Before the Court is Petitioner's motion to hold respondent Shane Jackson in default for allegedly failing to file a timely response..
More
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO HOLD RESPONDENT IN DEFAULT (Doc. 9) AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO MAIL A COPY OF THE RESPONSE TO PETITIONER
AVERN COHN, District Judge.
This is a pro se habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. Petitioner Gregory Midgyett challenges his state court convictions for second-degree murder and three weapon offenses. Before the Court is Petitioner's motion to hold respondent Shane Jackson in default for allegedly failing to file a timely response to the petition. See Doc. 9. Petitioner makes a similar allegation in a letter filed on April 18, 2019. See Doc. 10.
Petitioner accurately points out in his motion and letter that Respondent was ordered to file a responsive pleading by June 4, 2018. See Doc. 4. Contrary to Petitioner's additional allegation, however, Respondent is not in default. He filed a timely answer to the petition and the state-court materials on June 4, 2018. See Docs. 7-8. He has also certified that he mailed a copy of his answer to Petitioner. See Doc. 7, p. 60.
Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to hold Respondent in default is DENIED.
Petitioner also requests a copy of the Respondent's answer. See Doc. 11. Although Respondent certified that a copy was mailed to Petitioner, in an abundance of caution, the Court DIRECTS that Respondent mail another copy of the answer to Petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
