Opinion
Civil No. 2:15-CV-11629
09-03-2020
OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION, (2) SETTING DEADLINE FOR RESPONDENT TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER AND (3) SETTING DEADLINE FOR A REPLY BRIEF
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, through her counsel David S. Steingold, challenging her conviction for second-degree murder and second-degree child abuse. The petition was held in abeyance during the pendency of her request for a review of her criminal conviction by the Michigan Attorney General Office's Conviction Integrity Unit. (CIU). The case was reopened following completion of that review.
Petitioner has now filed a notice of newly discovered evidence, which is construed as a motion to amend the habeas petition. The motion to amend is granted. Respondent shall file a supplemental answer to this amended petition within 60 days of this order. Petitioner has 45 days following the filing of the state's answer to file a reply brief if she so chooses.
Petitioner's proposed amended habeas petition should be granted because it advances claims that may have arguable merit. See e.g. Braden v. United States, 817 F.3d 926, 930 (6th Cir. 2016).
Respondent shall file an answer to the amended petition within sixty days of the Court's order. See Erwin v. Elo, 130 F. Supp. 2d 887, 891 (E.D. Mich. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Petitioner has forty five days from the receipt of the answer to file a reply brief, if she so chooses. See Rule 5(e) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to amend the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.Dated: September 3, 2020
(2) Respondent shall file a supplemental answer within sixty (60) days of the date of this order or show cause why they are unable to comply with the order.
(5) Petitioner shall have forty five days from the date that she receives the answer to file a reply brief.
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
United States District Judge