Opinion
CIVIL 2:23-cv-10949
11-04-2024
MARK ANTHONY GOODING, Petitioner, v. PAROLE BOARD and HEIDI WASHINGTON, Respondents.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT (ECF No. 21) AND TO DISPENSE WITH MULTIPLE COPY REQUIREMENT (ECF No. 20) AS MOOT
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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. Petitioner then filed a motion to reissue the time limits to appeal, which the Court granted on April 29, 2024. (ECF No. 19.)
The matter is now before the Court on Petitioner's motions to alter or amend the judgment (ECF No. 21) and to dispense with the multiple copy requirement (ECF No. 20). Petitioner appears to explain that his delay in filing a timely notice of appeal was due to excusable neglect. (ECF No. 21, PageID.114.) Because this Court already issued an order reopening the time to appeal, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motions as moot. Petitioner has timely filed his notice of appeal in accordance with the Court's April 29th order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.