Kelley v. Burton ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARCUS MANDELLE KELLEY, Petitioner, Civil No. 2:18-CV-11161 HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEWAYNE BURTON, Respondent. __________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL (ECF No. 31) Marcus Mandelle Kelley, (“Petitioner”), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This Court, on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, granted Petitioner habeas relief. This Court concluded that the prosecutor or the police violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153 (1972) by withholding or failing to disclose that the officer in charge of the case, Detective Mark Ferguson, lied in a prior drug matter and was being investigated by the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department. Kelley v. Burton, No. 2:18-CV-11161, 2022 WL 286182 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2022). Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion to Stay. There is a presumption that a successful habeas petitioner should be released from custody pending the state’s appeal of a federal court decision granting habeas relief, but this presumption may be overcome if the judge rendering the decision, or an appellate court or judge, orders otherwise. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 774 (1987); Workman v. Tate, 958 F.2d 164, 166 (6th Cir. 1992); F.R.A.P. Rule 23(c). Because habeas proceedings are civil in nature, the general standards of governing stays of civil judgments should also guide courts when they must decide whether to release a habeas petitioner pending the state’s appeal. Hilton, 481 U.S. at 776. The factors regulating the issuance of a stay are: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether the issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. at 776; Workman v. Tate, 958 F.2d at 166. This Court strongly disagrees with Respondent’s assertion that he made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of the case on appeal. Nonetheless, the Court grants Respondent a stay pending appeal; “[i]t would be a waste of judicial resources for the appeal to proceed in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, while simultaneously requiring the State to grant relief to Petitioner.” Williams v. Booker, 715 F. Supp. 2d 756, 770 (E.D. Mich. 2010); rev’d on other grds, 454 F. App’x 475 (6th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the motion for stay pending appeal is GRANTED. See also Marion v. Woods, No. 2:12-CV-13127, 2015 WL 5895916, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 9, 2015). The Court’s granting a stay should not be interpreted by either Respondent or the Sixth Circuit to be a finding by this Court that Respondent has made a substantial showing of a likelihood of success on appeal. ORDER Accordingly, the Court the GRANTS the motion for a stay pending appeal. (ECF No. 31). s/Denise Page Hood DENISE PAGE HOOD Dated: May 4, 2022 United States District Court Judge