Jones v. Taskila ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TIMOTHY TERREL JONES, Petitioner, Case No. 2:21-CV-11820 v. Honorable George Caram Steeh KRIS TASKILA, Respondent. ___________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO REOPEN THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 11) AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF No. 14) Timothy Terrel Jones, (“petitioner”), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This Court summarily dismissed petitioner’s habeas application without prejudice on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust his claims with the state courts. This Court also declined to hold the petition in abeyance pending petitioner’s exhaustion of his claims in the state courts because he had the entire year remaining within the one year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) to file a new habeas petition after exhausting additional state court remedies. See Jones v. - 1 - Taskila, No. 2:21-CV-11820, 2021 WL 3552238 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2021). Petitioner has now filed a motion to reopen the original petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This Court is without the power to reinstate petitioner’s original habeas petition that had previously been filed before this Court. This Court did not retain jurisdiction over petitioner’s first habeas petition which was dismissed without prejudice based upon petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims with the state courts, in the absence of any express retention of jurisdiction over the first petition. See Lefkowitz v. Fair, 816 F.2d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 1987). Because this Court did not expressly retain jurisdiction over the first petition, this Court will deny petitioner’s motion to reinstate the original habeas petition to the Court’s active docket. See Wilson v. Warren, No. 06-CV- 15508, 2008 WL 5273633, *1 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2008). The denial of the motion is without prejudice to petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the federal district court under a new case number. Accordingly, the motion to reinstate the habeas petition (ECF No. 11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to petitioner filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the federal district court under a new case number. The - 2 - motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 14) is also DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dated: July 13, 2022 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 July 13, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on Timothy T. Jones #165747, Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility, 13924 Wadaga Road, Baraga, MI 49908. s/Brianna Sauve Deputy Clerk - 3 -