UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHARLES LEWIS, 

 Petitioner, 

 CASE NO. 2:15-cv-10766 

v. HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS 

BONITA HOFFNER, 

 Respondent. 

_________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO LIFT THE STAY (ECF NO. 7) 

AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE AN ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF NO. 8) AND PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 9)

 On March 2, 2015, petitioner Charles Lewis commenced this action by filing an 

application for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition 

indicated that Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced in 1977 to 

life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Petitioner argued in his habeas 

petition that his mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole 

for a crime that he committed at the age of seventeen was cruel and unusual 

punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioner 

based his argument on Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), in which the Supreme 

Court held “that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time 

of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual 

punishments.’ ” Id. at 2460. 

 On August 25, 2015, respondent Bonita Hoffner moved to transfer the petition to 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as a second or successive 

2:15-cv-10766-NGE-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 205
2 

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). On October 19, 2015, the Court denied 

Respondent’s motion and stayed this case pending the Supreme Court’s anticipated 

decision on whether Miller was retroactive. On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court 

held that “Miller announced a substantive rule of constitutional law” and “is retroactive 

because it necessarily carri[ies] a significant risk that a defendant – here, the vast 

majority of juvenile offenders – faces a punishment that the law cannot impose upon 

him.” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 734 (2016) (quotations marks and end 

citations omitted). 

 On February 11, 2016, Petitioner filed three motions in this case. In a purported 

motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 7), Petitioner asks the Court to lift its stay of 

his case. In a motion to show cause (ECF No. 8), Petitioner asks the Court to expand 

the record and to release him from custody on the basis that his conviction was 

dismissed fifteen years ago. Finally, in a second motion for relief from judgment (ECF 

No. 9), Petitioner alleges that the state trial court dismissed his conviction on April 3, 

2000, and that he is presently incarcerated without a conviction or sentence. 

 Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery, the Court grants Petitioner’s 

request to lift the stay (ECF No. 7). The Court lifts its stay and orders Respondent to 

address Petitioner’s habeas claim that his mandatory life sentence is cruel and unusual 

punishment. 

 Petitioner’s motion to show cause and second motion for relief from judgment 

(ECF Nos. 8 and 9) challenge his murder conviction. The Court orders Respondent to 

file an answer to those motions and to Petitioner’s sentencing claim within twenty-eight 

2:15-cv-10766-NGE-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 206
3 

(28) days of the date of this order. Petitioner shall have twenty-eight (28) days from 

the date of Respondent’s answer to file a reply. 

 s/ Nancy G. Edmunds 

Dated: 4/26/16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:15-cv-10766-NGE-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 207