Valentine v. Hemingway ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TYRONE VALENTINE, Petitioner, Civil No. 2:22-CV-12323 HONORABLE SEAN F. COX v. JONATHAN HEMINGWAY, Respondent. ___________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION (ECF No. 6) TO HOLD BRIEFING IN ABEYANCE PENDING THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN JONES v. HENDRIX, S. Ct. No. 21-857. Tyrone Valentine, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges the validity of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), arising from his conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to being a felon in possession of ammunition, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The United States Attorney has moved to hold briefing in abeyance in this case pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Jones v. Hendrix, No. 21-857. In Jones, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on whether federal prisoners like petitioner may seek habeas relief to challenge their federal convictions or sentences using the saving clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Jones was argued at the beginning of November, 2022. The United States Attorney argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones should clarify whether and to what extent petitioner may challenge his status as an Armed Career Criminal in a habeas petition. As the United States Attorney notes, the scope of the saving clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) 1 is jurisdictional and is thus a threshold question that must be resolved before this Court could reach the merits of the habeas petition. See Taylor v. Owens, 990 F.3d 493, 496–500 (6th Cir. 2021). A federal court has “broad discretion” to stay its proceedings pending the resolution of an independent proceeding occurring in another forum. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Federal courts in particular have the power to hold a habeas petitioner’s case in abeyance pending the resolution by the Supreme Court of a legal issue in another case that could affect the disposition of the legal issues in a petitioner’s case. See Sutton v. Carpenter, 745 F.3d 787, 790 (6th Cir. 2014). The Court will hold briefing in abeyance pending a decision by the Supreme Court in the Jones case. Respondent shall file an answer to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus within sixty days of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones. Petitioner shall have forty five days after the answer is filed to submit a reply brief, if he so chooses. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to hold briefing in abeyance is GRANTED. Dated: December 14, 2022 s/Sean F. Cox Sean F. Cox U. S. District Judge 2