Moore v. Hemingway ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________ LEONARD MOORE, Petitioner, Case No. 22-cv-12321 v. JONATHAN HEMINGWAY, Respondent. / ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO HOLD BRIEFING IN ABEYANCE Petitioner Leonard Moore is currently serving a sentence of 204 months in prison for convictions arising out of his participation in various crimes, including a firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). On September 30, 2022, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner essentially argues that his § 924(c) conviction should be vacated in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022). (Id.) This sort of claim generally must be raised in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but Petitioner attempts to raise it in a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He can proceed under § 2241 only if § 2255’s “savings clause” applies, that is, if he shows § 2255 is an “inadequate or ineffective” remedy. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). On November 16, 2022, Respondent filed a motion to hold briefing in abeyance until the United States Supreme Court issues a decision in Jones v. Hendrix, No. 21- 857, 2022 WL 1528372 (May 16, 2022). (ECF No. 4.) The question at issue in Jones is a circuit split regarding the availability of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)’s savings clause to allow statutory interpretation claims to be raised under § 2241. Respondent argues that, “because the scope of the saving clause is jurisdictional, it is a threshold question that this Court must resolve before reaching the merits of Moore’s petition.” (ECF No. 4, PageID.54.) Petitioner did not file a response. The court has “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Here, the court finds that the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in Jones v. Hendrix, No. 21-857, which was argued on November 1, 2022, is likely to impact the question of whether relief is available to Petitioner. Thus, the court finds that a stay would appropriately serve the interests of judicial efficiency. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s “Motion to Hold Briefing in Abeyance Pending Jones v. Hendrix” (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 60 days of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones, Respondent shall file a response to the habeas petition. Petitioner may thereafter file a reply no later than 60 days after the response is filed. s/Robert H. Cleland / ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: May 4, 2023 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, May 4, 2023, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Lisa Wagner / Case Manager and Deputy Clerk (810) 292-6522 S:\Cleland\Cleland\EKL\Opinions & Orders\Staff Attorney\22-12321.MOORE.MotionToHoldBriefingInAbeyance.EKL.docx