Blake Sandlain v. Eric Rardin

E.D. Michigan

Blake Sandlain v. Eric Rardin

DecidedMay 12, 2026

Docket2:25-cv-13488

StatusUnknown

This text of Blake Sandlain v. Eric Rardin (Blake Sandlain v. Eric Rardin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blake Sandlain v. Eric Rardin, (E.D. Mich. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BLAKE SANDLAIN,

Petitioner, Case No. 2:25-CV-13488

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

ERIC RARDIN, GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

Respondent. ___________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER VACATING IN PART THE COURT’S RESPONSIVE PLEADING ORDER (ECF No. 7) AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PETITION WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THIS ORDER, AND DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE A REPLY WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF THE ANSWER

Blake Sandlain, (“petitioner”), filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This Court summarily dismissed the petition because Petitioner had been enjoined from filing lawsuits in this Court without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge due to his lengthy and vexatious litigation history and had not obtained leave from the presiding judge before filing the petition. On April 24, 2026, this Court reopened the case and directed Respondent to file an answer within thirty (30) days of the order and Petitioner to file a reply, if he chose, within fifteen (15) days of the answer. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has now granted in part Petitioner’s petition for mandamus and ordered this Court to vacate its briefing schedule and order a more time-sensitive briefing schedule and to rule on Petitioner’s habeas petition in time to afford him effectual relief should he prevail. In Re Sandlain, No. 26-1043 (6th Cir. May 8, 2026). In response to the Sixth Circuit’s order, the briefing schedule is accelerated. Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within fifteen (15) days of the Court’s order. See Erwin v. Elo, 130 F. Supp. 2d 887, 891 (E.D. Mich. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Petitioner has seven (7) days from the receipt of the answer to file a reply brief. /s/ Gershwin A. Drain GERSHWIN A. DRAIN Dated: May 12, 2026 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BLAKE SANDLAIN,

Petitioner, Case No. 2:25-CV-13488

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

ERIC RARDIN, GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

Respondent. ___________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER VACATING IN PART THE COURT’S RESPONSIVE PLEADING ORDER (ECF No. 7) AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PETITION WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THIS ORDER, AND DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE A REPLY WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF THE ANSWER

Blake Sandlain, (“petitioner”), filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This Court summarily dismissed the petition because Petitioner had been enjoined from filing lawsuits in this Court without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge due to his lengthy and vexatious litigation history and had not obtained leave from the presiding judge before filing the petition. On April 24, 2026, this Court reopened the case and directed Respondent to file an answer within thirty (30) days of the order and Petitioner to file a reply, if he chose, within fifteen (15) days of the answer. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has now granted in part Petitioner’s petition for mandamus and ordered this Court to vacate its briefing schedule and order a more time-sensitive briefing schedule and to rule on Petitioner’s habeas petition in time to afford him effectual relief should he prevail. In Re Sandlain, No. 26-1043 (6th Cir. May 8, 2026). In response to the Sixth Circuit’s order, the briefing schedule is accelerated. Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within fifteen (15) days of the Court’s order. See Erwin v. Elo, 130 F. Supp. 2d 887, 891 (E.D. Mich. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Petitioner has seven (7) days from the receipt of the answer to file a reply brief. /s/ Gershwin A. Drain GERSHWIN A. DRAIN Dated: May 12, 2026 United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Blake Sandlain v. Eric Rardin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-sandlain-v-eric-rardin-mied-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack