UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAMAR CRAIG,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 14-12386

 HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

LLOYD RAPELJE, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CORRECT 

 RESPONDENT’S NAME (ECF No. 9), GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

 MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME (ECF No. 10), 

 GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY, 

 PRODUCTION, AND COPYING (ECF No. 12), AND DENYING 

 PETITIONER’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELEASE (ECF No. 13)

On June 18, 2014, petitioner Lamar Craig commenced this action by filing a

pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition

challenges Petitioner’s 2009 plea-based conviction for gross indecency between

male and female as a sexually delinquent person. See Mich. Comp. Laws §§

750.338b and 750.10a. Petitioner is serving a sentence of thirteen to forty years for

the crime. The issues in his habeas petition are whether his guilty plea was

knowing and voluntary, whether he was sentenced on the basis of inaccurate

information and improperly scored sentencing guidelines, and whether his trial and

appellate attorneys were constitutionally ineffective. 

2:14-cv-12386-AJT-PJK Doc # 15 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 789
On December 23, 2014, the State filed a responsive pleading in which it

urges the Court to deny Petitioner’s claims on the basis that the state court’s

decision on Petitioner’s claims was objectively reasonable. Currently before the

Court are Petitioner’s motion to correct the respondent’s name, his motion for an

extension of time to file a reply to the responsive pleading, his motion for

discovery, production, and copying, and his motion for release from custody

pending a decision in this case. The first three motions are granted, but the motion

for release from custody is denied. The reasons follow.

I. The Motion to Amend

In his first motion, Petitioner seeks to amend his habeas corpus petition to

reflect the correct name of the state warden who has custody of him. On June 18,

2014, when Petitioner filed his habeas petition, he was confined at Saginaw

Correctional Facility where respondent Lloyd Rapelje was the warden. Since then,

Petitioner has been transferred to the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in

Jackson, Michigan where Joe Barrett is the warden. As a result of the institutional

transfer, Petitioner wishes to substitute Mr. Barrett as respondent in place of Mr.

Rapelje. The State concurs in Petitioner’s request to amend the caption of this case

to reflect the change in custody and warden. See Answer in Opp’n to Pet’r Mot.

for Release, ECF No. 14 n.1

2

2:14-cv-12386-AJT-PJK Doc # 15 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 790
The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is the person who holds the

petitioner in custody. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242 ¶2 and 2243 ¶2; Rule 2(a) of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Because

Joe Barrett currently has custody of Petitioner, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion

to amend his habeas petition to reflect the correct name of the respondent (ECF No.

9). The Clerk of the Court is ordered to terminate Lloyd Rapelje as respondent and

to substitute Joe Barrett as the respondent.1

II. The Motion for Enlargement of Time

 In his second motion, Petitioner seeks an enlargement of time to file a 

response to the State’s answer to the habeas petition. Although the State filed its

answer on December 23, 2014, Petitioner states that he did not receive the answer

until January 6, 2015. Petitioner seeks at least thirty more days to file his reply. 

The Court grants Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 10) and orders him to file his reply

to the responsive pleading within forty-five (45) days of the date of this order. 

III. The Motion for Copies 

In his third motion, Petitioner seeks copies of many of the state-court

materials that the State filed with its answer to the petition. Some of the items are

1

 The Clerk of the Court has already changed Petitioner’s address on the

docket to reflect his current location at Cooper Street Correctional Facility, 3100

Cooper Street, Jackson, MI 49201. 

3

2:14-cv-12386-AJT-PJK Doc # 15 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 791
documents that Petitioner filed in state court, other items are orders that Petitioner

should have received from the state court, and still other items are transcripts that

Petitioner should have been able to acquire during the state-court proceedings. 

Nevertheless, because Petitioner claims that he is indigent and unable to acquire

the items, the Court grants his motion for discovery, production, and copying (ECF

No. 12). The Clerk of the Court is ordered to mail a copy of the requested items

(ECF Nos. 8-4 and 8-7 to 8-16) to Petitioner along with a copy of this order.2

IV. The Emergency Motion for Release from State Custody

In his fourth and final motion, Petitioner seeks release from custody pending

a full review of his case. In support of this request, Petitioner claims that he is

actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, that his trial and

appellate attorneys were ineffective, that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory

evidence and relied on perjured statements by the victim and her mother, and that

his sentence was manipulated. 

The State opposes Petitioner’s motion on the ground that Petitioner has not

met the demanding standard for obtaining release pending disposition of a habeas

petition. The State argues that (1) Petitioner has not presented any substantial

2

 The Court did not copy all of ECF No. 8-14, because some of the materials

pertain to a different defendant and some of the materials are included in other

documents which the Court is sending to Petitioner.

4

2:14-cv-12386-AJT-PJK Doc # 15 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 792
claims of law in his habeas petition, (2) Petitioner has not shown the existence of

some circumstance making the motion for bail exceptional and deserving of special

treatment, and (3) in addition to the conviction being challenged in his habeas

petition, Petitioner was convicted of fourth-degree fleeing from a police officer in

2001. 

A habeas petitioner can be released on bond pending a decision on his

petition if, “in addition to there being substantial questions presented by the

[application], there is some circumstance making th[e] application exceptional and

deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice.” Aronson v. May, 85 S.

Ct. 3, 5 (1964)(citations omitted). “Since a habeas petitioner is appealing a

presumptively valid state conviction, both principles of comity and common sense

dictate that it will indeed be the very unusual case where a habeas petitioner is

admitted to bail prior to a decision on the merits in the habeas case.” Lee v. Jabe,

989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993). As a practical matter, motions for bond will be

denied in most habeas proceedings, as there will be few occasions when a

petitioner meets the Aronson standard. Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir.

1990).

Petitioner purports to have raised substantial questions in his habeas petition,

and he alleges that he not only has the support of family and the community, but he

5

2:14-cv-12386-AJT-PJK Doc # 15 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 793
presents no threat to anyone. Even if these allegations were true, Petitioner has not

shown some circumstance that makes his request exceptional and deserving of

special treatment in the interests of justice. The Court therefore agrees with the

State that Petitioner is not entitled to release on bond. His emergency motion for

release from state custody pending a full review of his case (ECF No. 13) is

denied. 

 

 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

Dated: July 22, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

2:14-cv-12386-AJT-PJK Doc # 15 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 794