Williams v. Michigan Department of Corrections

E.D. Michigan

Williams v. Michigan Department of Corrections

DecidedJune 6, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-12923

StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Michigan Department of Corrections (Williams v. Michigan Department of Corrections) 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

Williams v. Michigan Department of Corrections, (E.D. Mich. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID J. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, Case No. 22-cv-12923 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Respondents. __________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME [ECF NO. 1] WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Before the Court is Michigan prisoner David J. Williams’ motion for enlargement of time to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The clerk filed the document as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner states that he intends to file a habeas petition, but requires additional time to review and research the issues involved in his case to file the petition. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner’s motion for enlargement of time must be denied because he has not yet filed a habeas petition. Petitioner cannot request relief from his filing deadline before he has initiated a habeas case in this Court. For Petitioner to seek equitable tolling (which permits a Court to toll the statute of limitations under limited circumstances, see Robertson v. Simpson, 624 F.3d 781, 783 (6th Cir. 2010)), he must first file a habeas petition. United States v. Asakevich, 810 F.3d 418, 421 (6th

Cir. 2016) (explaining that a court cannot give “pre-approval” of equitable tolling before a habeas petition is filed). For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion for an enlargement of time to

file his habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. When and if Petitioner files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court will review his request that the Court toll the statute of limitations and/or otherwise deem his petition to be timely filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 6, 2023

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on June 6, 2023, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126

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

DAVID J. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, Case No. 22-cv-12923 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Respondents. __________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME [ECF NO. 1] WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Before the Court is Michigan prisoner David J. Williams’ motion for enlargement of time to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The clerk filed the document as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner states that he intends to file a habeas petition, but requires additional time to review and research the issues involved in his case to file the petition. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner’s motion for enlargement of time must be denied because he has not yet filed a habeas petition. Petitioner cannot request relief from his filing deadline before he has initiated a habeas case in this Court. For Petitioner to seek equitable tolling (which permits a Court to toll the statute of limitations under limited circumstances, see Robertson v. Simpson, 624 F.3d 781, 783 (6th Cir. 2010)), he must first file a habeas petition. United States v. Asakevich, 810 F.3d 418, 421 (6th

Cir. 2016) (explaining that a court cannot give “pre-approval” of equitable tolling before a habeas petition is filed). For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion for an enlargement of time to

file his habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. When and if Petitioner files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court will review his request that the Court toll the statute of limitations and/or otherwise deem his petition to be timely filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 6, 2023

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on June 6, 2023, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. Michigan Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-michigan-department-of-corrections-mied-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack