UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

LAURENCIO L. RODRIGUEZ, 

 Petitioner, 

v. CASE NO. 15-11155 

 HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

ERICA HUSS, 

 Respondent. 

_________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A COPY OF 

THE RULE 5 MATERIALS [Dkt. #15] AND GRANTING THE STATE’S 

MOTION TO FILE ITS ANSWER INSTANTER [Dkt. #17]

 Petitioner Laurencio L. Rodriguez commenced this action in 2015 by filing a 

pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a motion to hold the 

petition in abeyance while he pursued state remedies. See Dkt. #1 and #3. At the 

time, petitioner was incarcerated at the Ionia Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan 

where he was serving a sentence of 450 to 840 months for second-degree murder. 

On April 21, 2015, the Court granted petitioner’s motion for a stay and closed this 

case for administrative purposes. See Dkt. #6. 

 Petitioner then pursued state collateral remedies, and on October 2, 2017, he 

filed an amended habeas corpus petition and a motion to re-open this case. See Dkt. 
2

#11. By then, he had been transferred to the Marquette Branch Prison in Marquette, 

Michigan where Erica Huss was the warden. 

 On April 13, 2018, the Court granted petitioner’s motion to re-open this case 

and ordered the Clerk of Court to serve the amended petition on the Michigan 

Attorney General and on warden Huss at the Marquette Branch Prison. See Dkt. 

#13. In the same order, the Court directed the State to file the relevant state-court 

materials and a response to the amended petition within six months of the Court’s 

order. Now before the Court are the State’s motion for leave to file its answer 

instanter and petitioner’s motion for a copy of all Rule 5 materials.1

The State’s Motion

 The State seeks permission to file an answer to the habeas petition and the 

Rule 5 materials within ninety days of the date of its motion, which was filed on 

                                                            

1

  Under Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he respondent

must attach to the answer parts of the transcript that the respondent considers

relevant.”  Rule 5(d) requires the respondent also to  

file with the answer a copy of:

(1) any brief that the petitioner submitted in an appellate court

contesting the conviction or sentence, or contesting an adverse

judgment or order in a post‐conviction proceeding;

(2) any brief that the prosecution submitted in an appellate court

relating to the conviction or sentence; and

(3) the opinions and dispositive orders of the appellate court relating

to the conviction or the sentence.
3

January 8, 2019. The State points out that it was not served with the initial habeas 

petition or the Court’s order staying this case on April 21, 2015. The State also 

alleges that neither the Michigan Attorney General, nor petitioner’s warden at 

Marquette Branch Prison, received timely notice of the Court’s order dated April 13, 

2018, which directed the State to file a responsive pleading within six months. As 

a result, the State did not respond to the amended petition. 

 The docket confirms the State’s allegations. The Court did not serve the initial 

petition or the order granting a stay on the State because there was no need for a 

responsive pleading at that time. When the Court subsequently re-opened this case 

on April 13, 2018, and ordered the State to file a responsive pleading, the order was 

sent to petitioner, but not to the Michigan Attorney General or to petitioner’s warden 

at the Marquette Branch Prison. See Dkt. #13; see also the text-only certificate of 

service dated April 25, 2018. 

 On December 13, 2018, the Court realized that the State had not been served 

with its order dated April 13, 2018. The Court then sent its April 13, 2018 order to 

the Michigan Attorney General and to warden Huss. See text-only certificate of 

service dated December 13, 2018. The Michigan Attorney General filed an 

appearance in this case six days later, see Dkt. #16, and now seeks permission to file 

its answer by April 8, 2019. 
4

 The Court excuses the State’s failure to file a timely response to the amended 

petition because the State was not at fault. Instead, the Court failed to ensure that 

the State was sent a copy of the April 13, 2018 order re-opening this case and 

directing the State to file a responsive pleading. Accordingly, the Court grants the 

State’s Motion to file its answer and the Rule 5 materials instanter. The responsive 

pleading and the Rule 5 materials shall be due no later than April 8, 2019. Petitioner 

shall have forty-five days from the date of the responsive pleading to file a reply. 

Petitioner’s Motion

 Petitioner seeks a copy of all transcripts, police reports, exhibits, lower court 

motions and briefs, and any documents pertaining to this case. He alleges that the 

Michigan Department of Corrections misplaced his legal materials and that the 

States gave him only $100.00 in compensation even though the missing materials 

consist of thousands of pages and the state court charges $1.00 per page to copy 

court documents. 

 Section 2250 of Title 28, United States Code, provides that, 

[i]f on any application for a writ of habeas corpus an order has been 

made permitting the petitioner to prosecute the application in forma 

pauperis, the clerk of any court of the United States shall furnish to the 

petitioner without cost certified copies of such documents or parts of 

the record on file in his office as may be required by order of the judge 

before whom the application is pending. 

 The Court previously granted petitioner’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis in this case, see Dkt. #5, and his legal materials apparently have been lost 
5

through no fault of his own. The Court, therefore, grants petitioner’s motion. Upon 

receipt of the Rule 5 materials from the State, the Court will send petitioner a copy 

of the transcript of trial and any other Rule 5 materials that the Court deems relevant 

to the issues listed in the amended habeas petition. 

 

 s/George Caram Steeh 

 GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: February 7, 2019 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record and 

Laurencio L. Rodriguez #649211, 1960 U.S. Hwy. 41 South, 

Marquette, MI 49855 on 

February 7, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Marcia Beauchemin 

Deputy Clerk