Dwight Lemar Young v. Donald Curley

Young v. Curley · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division · January 28, 2026 · No. 2:22-CV-10716

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan grants Dwight Lemar Young’s motion to lift the stay and amend his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court orders the case reopened, amends the caption to identify Donald Curley as respondent, directs service of the amended petition, and requires a supplemental answer and additional Rule 5 materials.

Holdings

  1. A federal court may reinstate a stayed habeas petition upon a timely request after the petitioner completes exhaustion of the relevant state-court remedies; because Young represented that his state post-conviction appeal was finalized and his claims were exhausted, the court reopened the original petition.
  2. The court granted Young leave to amend his habeas petition because the proposed amended petition advanced new claims that might have arguable merit.
  3. The caption was properly amended to identify Donald Curley, the warden of the facility where Young was incarcerated, as the respondent.
  4. The clerk was directed to serve the amended petition and order on respondent and the Michigan Attorney General, and respondent was directed to file a supplemental answer and any additional Rule 5 materials within 120 days.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the stayed § 2254 habeas case should be reopened after petitioner represented that the state post-conviction proceedings and exhaustion of his claims were complete.
  2. Whether petitioner should be permitted to amend the habeas petition to assert new claims with arguable merit.
  3. Whether the case caption should be amended to identify Donald Curley, the current warden, as the proper respondent.
  4. Whether respondent should be ordered to serve a supplemental answer and additional Rule 5 materials concerning the amended petition.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (6)

  • Rodriguez v. Jones, 625 F. Supp. 2d 552, 559 (E.D. Mich. 2009)(followed)
  • Edwards Johns, 450 F. Supp. 2d 755, 757 (E.D. Mich. 2006)(followed)
  • Braden v. United States, 817 F.3d 926, 930 (6th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Coffee v. Harry, No. 04-71209-DT, 2005 WL 1861943, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2005)(followed)
  • Erwin v. Elo, 130 F. Supp. 2d 887, 891 (E.D. Mich. 2001)(followed)
  • Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 653–54 (6th Cir. 2002)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…