Gooding v. Parole Board

District Court, E.D. Michigan·Decided April 29, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-10949·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARK ANTHONY GOODING, Petitioner, Civil No. 2:23-cv-10949 Hon. George Caram Steeh v. PAROLE BOARD and HEIDI WASHINGTON, Respondents. ____________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISPENSE WITH MULTIPLE COPY REQUIREMENT (ECF No. 17) AND TO REOPEN TIME TO FILE AN APPEAL (ECF No. 18) Petitioner Mark Anthony Gooding, a Michigan prisoner confined at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner challenged the Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss his parole-revocation appeal pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2963(8) for failing to pay an outstanding filing fee in a prior appeal. He also

challenged the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss his application for leave to appeal as untimely. The Court dismissed the habeas petition on the basis that it lacked the authority to review such claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460

U.S. 462 (1983). Within 30 days of the entry of the Court’s dismissal order, Petitioner moved to extend the time to file an appeal, which the Court granted on February 16, 2024.

The matter is now before the Court on Petitioner’s motions to re-open the time to file an appeal and to dispense with the multiple copy requirement. For the reasons explained below, the Court will GRANT Petitioner’s motions.

Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a notice of appeal “must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” This time limit is

mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr. Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). The failure of an appellant to timely file a notice of appeal deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction. Rhoden v. Campbell, 153 F. 3d 773, 774 (6th Cir. 1998).

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), however, provides that where a party does not receive notice of a judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d), the district court may reopen the

time to file an appeal if the motion to reopen is filed within 180 days after the judgment is entered, or within 14 days after the party receives notice, whichever is earlier.

Rule 4(a)(6) is the exclusive remedy for reopening the time to file an appeal. Bowles v. Russell, 432 F.3d 668, 672–73 (6th Cir. 2005), aff'd, 551 U.S. 205 (2007). District court rulings on Rule 60(b)(6) motions are

reviewed for abuse of discretion. Browder, 434 U.S. at 263 n.7; Kuhn v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc., 498 F.3d 365, 370 (6th Cir. 2007). Here, the Court will exercise its discretion to grant the motion for reopening the time for filing the notice of appeal. Petitioner claims he did

not receive actual notice of the February 16, 2024 Order until March 28, 2024. Petitioner asserts that he was being transferred from the Central Correctional Facility to the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in early

March. The docket reflects that the Court's Order was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 15. Petitioner filed his motion to reopen within 14 days of receiving actual notice, as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6).

Because Petitioner meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), the Court GRANTS the motion to reopen. Petitioner has 14 days after the date of the entry of this Order to file an

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The Court further GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to dispense with the copy requirements under Local Rule 5.1(b) for the reasons stated in the

motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 29, 2024 s/George Caram Steeh HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE CopiesofthisOrderwereserveduponattorneysofrecord onApril29,2024,byelectronicand/orordinarymailand alsoonMarkAnthonyGooding#180621,CooperStreet CorrectionalFacility,3100CooperStreet, Jackson,MI49201. s/LashawnSaulsberry DeputyClerk

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

Gooding v. Parole Board, (E.D. Mich. 2024).

Gooding v. Parole Board (Gooding v. Parole Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
263 U.S. 413 (Supreme Court, 1924)
Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.
434 U.S. 257 (Supreme Court, 1978)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
460 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Bowles v. Russell
551 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Keith Bowles v. Harry Russell, Warden
432 F.3d 668 (Sixth Circuit, 2005)
Kuhn v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc.
498 F.3d 365 (Sixth Circuit, 2007)
Rhoden v. Campbell
153 F.3d 773 (Sixth Circuit, 1998)