Opinion
23-cv-11172
06-14-2023
DEMARIO CRENSHAW, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Respondent.
ORDER (1) CONSTRUING AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 5) AS A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; (2) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 5); AND (3) DENYING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 6)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 17, 2023, Petitioner Demario Crenshaw filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he challenged his pending state court prosecution. (See Pet., ECF No. 1.) This Court summarily dismissed the petition because Crenshaw has yet to be convicted of any criminal charges in state court, and because a federal district court should generally abstain from hearing a pretrial habeas petition filed by a state prisoner if the issues raised in the petition are capable of being resolved in state court. (See Order, ECF No. 3.)
Following the Court's order summarily dismissing his petition, Crenshaw filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 6.) The Court construes Crenshaw's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) as a Motion for Leave to Amend and, for the same reasons explained in the Court's Order summarily dismissing Crenshaw's petition, DENIES the motion. Moreover, Crenshaw's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 6) is also DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on June 14, 2023, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126