Judy Higley-Zuehlke v. Jeremy Howard

E.D. Michigan

Judy Higley-Zuehlke v. Jeremy Howard

District Court, E.D. Michigan·Decided August 3, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-11354·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JUDY HIGLEY-ZUEHLKE, Petitioner, Case No. 2:25-cv-11354

v. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN JEREMY HOWARD, Respondent. /

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT (ECF No. 9) Michigan prisoner Judy Higley-Zuehlke (“Petitioner”), through counsel, has filed petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting that she is incarcerated in violation of her constitutional rights. The petition raises claims concerning the prosecution’s suppression of exculpatory evidence, newly discovered evidence showing actual innocence, Petitioner’s right to confrontation, and the prosecution’s use of inconsistent theories to obtain a conviction. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition, along with the Rule 5 materials, (ECF No. 5 & 6) and Petitioner has filed a reply to that answer (ECF No. 8). This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for oral argument on the merits of the petition. (See ECF No. 9.)

This Court’s general practice is to decide a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the briefs. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1 (f)(1). However, a federal district court can grant oral argument in a habeas case where it would assist in resolving the matters raised in the habeas petition. See, e.g., Haskell v. Berghuis, 695 F. Supp. 2d 574, 584 (E.D. Mich. 2010). A cursory review of the pleadings and state-court record shows that oral argument is not warranted. If, after further review of the pleadings and state- court record, the Court finds that oral argument will assist in resolving the merits of the petition, the Court will schedule a hearing on its own initiative. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for oral argument without prejudice. The Court will bear in mind Petitioner’s request if, upon further review of the case, the Court determines that oral argument is necessary. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2026 /s/Gershwin A. Drain GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 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 JUDY HIGLEY-ZUEHLKE, Petitioner, Case No. 2:25-cv-11354

v. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN JEREMY HOWARD, Respondent. /

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT (ECF No. 9) Michigan prisoner Judy Higley-Zuehlke (“Petitioner”), through counsel, has filed petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting that she is incarcerated in violation of her constitutional rights. The petition raises claims concerning the prosecution’s suppression of exculpatory evidence, newly discovered evidence showing actual innocence, Petitioner’s right to confrontation, and the prosecution’s use of inconsistent theories to obtain a conviction. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition, along with the Rule 5 materials, (ECF No. 5 & 6) and Petitioner has filed a reply to that answer (ECF No. 8). This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for oral argument on the merits of the petition. (See ECF No. 9.)

This Court’s general practice is to decide a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the briefs. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1 (f)(1). However, a federal district court can grant oral argument in a habeas case where it would assist in resolving the matters raised in the habeas petition. See, e.g., Haskell v. Berghuis, 695 F. Supp. 2d 574, 584 (E.D. Mich. 2010). A cursory review of the pleadings and state-court record shows that oral argument is not warranted. If, after further review of the pleadings and state- court record, the Court finds that oral argument will assist in resolving the merits of the petition, the Court will schedule a hearing on its own initiative. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for oral argument without prejudice. The Court will bear in mind Petitioner’s request if, upon further review of the case, the Court determines that oral argument is necessary. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2026 /s/Gershwin A. Drain GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Judge

Judy Higley-Zuehlke v. Jeremy Howard, (E.D. Mich. 2026).

Pincite

Judy Higley-Zuehlke v. Jeremy Howard (Judy Higley-Zuehlke v. Jeremy Howard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related