Fette v. Horton

E.D. Michigan

Fette v. Horton

DecidedAugust 27, 2020

Docket4:20-cv-10020

StatusUnknown

This text of Fette v. Horton (Fette v. Horton) 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

Fette v. Horton, (E.D. Mich. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER ALLAN FETTE,

Petitioner, Case No. 4:20-cv-10020 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v.

CONNIE HORTON,

Respondent. __________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FURNISH RECORDS

This is a habeas case brought by Michigan prisoner Christopher Allan Fette. Among other things, Petitioner claims that his guilty plea in state court was involuntary due to his mental illness and learning disabilities. Petitioner indicated that medical records supporting this claim were attached to his petition, but they were not included in the copy of the petition filed with the Court. Furthermore, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on statute of limitations grounds. Petitioner asserts in his response that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to his mental illness and learning disabilities, and he refers the Court to medical records that again do not appear in any of his pleadings. Rule 7(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases provides that the Court “may direct the record be expanded by the parties by the inclusion of additional materials relevant to the determination of the merits of the petition.” The decision whether to expand a habeas record is within the sound discretion of the Court. See West v. Bell, 550 F.3d 542, 551 (6th Cir. 2008). It appears the medical records referred to by

Petitioner were inadvertently omitted. Such records, if they exist, may aid the Court in resolving the issues raised in the petition and the motion to dismiss. The Court therefore directs Petitioner to file with the Court the missing

records referred to in his petition and response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss by October 30, 2020. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 27, 2020

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on August 27, 2020, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764

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

CHRISTOPHER ALLAN FETTE,

Petitioner, Case No. 4:20-cv-10020 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v.

CONNIE HORTON,

Respondent. __________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FURNISH RECORDS

This is a habeas case brought by Michigan prisoner Christopher Allan Fette. Among other things, Petitioner claims that his guilty plea in state court was involuntary due to his mental illness and learning disabilities. Petitioner indicated that medical records supporting this claim were attached to his petition, but they were not included in the copy of the petition filed with the Court. Furthermore, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on statute of limitations grounds. Petitioner asserts in his response that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to his mental illness and learning disabilities, and he refers the Court to medical records that again do not appear in any of his pleadings. Rule 7(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases provides that the Court “may direct the record be expanded by the parties by the inclusion of additional materials relevant to the determination of the merits of the petition.” The decision whether to expand a habeas record is within the sound discretion of the Court. See West v. Bell, 550 F.3d 542, 551 (6th Cir. 2008). It appears the medical records referred to by

Petitioner were inadvertently omitted. Such records, if they exist, may aid the Court in resolving the issues raised in the petition and the motion to dismiss. The Court therefore directs Petitioner to file with the Court the missing

records referred to in his petition and response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss by October 30, 2020. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 27, 2020

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on August 27, 2020, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fette v. Horton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fette-v-horton-mied-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack