Hill v. Winn ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KENNETH DEWAYNE HILL, Petitioner, Case No. 18-CV-13792 v. Hon. George Caram Steeh THOMAS WINN, Respondent. ____________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO SERVE A COPY OF THE ANSWER ON COUNSEL OF RECORD AND GRANTING PETITIONER AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF Kenneth Dewayne Hill, (“Petitioner”), filed a habeas corpus petition, challenging his state convictions for first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. His petition is signed by attorney Jeffrey G. Collins and also by petitioner. Mr. Collins also signed a certificate of service.1 Respondent filed an answer to the petition but did not serve a copy of the answer on Mr. Collins, choosing instead only to serve a copy on petitioner at the prison where he is incarcerated.2 1 ECF No. 1, PageID.6, PageID.16. 2 ECF No. 5, PageID.59. E.D. Mich. L.R. 83.25 (a) states: An attorney appears and becomes an attorney of record by filing a pleading or other paper or a notice of appearance. The attorney’s office address, e-mail address, and telephone number must be included in the appearance. Mr. Collins never filed a separate notice of appearance, but he did sign the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, eliminating the necessity for filing a personal appearance per E.D. Mich. L.R. 83.25. BRP Acquisition Grp., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., No. 11-CV-12286, 2012 WL 4449654, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 25, 2012). The docket report has been corrected to reflect that Jeffrey G. Collins is the attorney of record. An answer to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be served on a habeas petitioner’s attorney of record. See Rodriguez v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 748 F.3d 1073, 1076 (11th Cir. 2014). This Court orders respondent to serve a copy of the answer to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus on Jeffrey G. Collins within seven days of this order. Petitioner’s counsel is granted sixty (60) days from the date of the receipt of respondent’s answer to file a reply brief if he so chooses. Rule 5(e) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 states that a habeas petitioner “may submit a reply to the respondent’s answer or other pleading within a time fixed by the judge.” See Baysdell v. Howes, No. 04-CV-73293, 2005 WL 1838443, *4 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 1, 2005). A court does not need to grant a habeas petitioner an extension of time to file a reply brief unless it would “assist the Court in a fair disposition of the matter.” Cf. Williams v. White, 183 F. Supp. 2d 969, 979 (E.D. Mich. 2002). This Court believes that the Court will benefit from a reply brief and will grant petitioner an extension of sixty days to file a reply brief if his counsel chooses to file one. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Respondent shall serve a copy of the answer on Attorney Jeffrey G. Collins within seven (7) days of this order. (2) Petitioner’s counsel has sixty (60) days from receipt of the answer to file a reply brief, if he so chooses. Dated: March 9, 2021 s/George Caram Steeh GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on March 9, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Brianna Sauve Deputy Clerk