UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DOUGLAS JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

LES PARISH,

Respondent.

 /

Case No. 15-cv-11622

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS

OPINION AND ORDER (1) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO REOPEN PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO SERVE ORDER ON THE RESPONDENT AND 

THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, (2) DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO PROVIDE PETITIONER LEGAL 

ASSISTANCE [28], (3) AMENDING CASE CAPTION, (4) GRANTING PETITIONER 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED HABEAS PETITION, AND (5) SETTING 

DEADLINE FOR RESPONDENT TO ANSWER PETITION AND FILE RULE 5

MATERIALS

I. Introduction

On May 5, 2015, Petitioner Douglas Jackson filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 1. In that petition, he 

sought relief from his convictions for three counts of first-degree criminal sexual 

conduct, one count of assault with intent to do great bodily harm, and one count of 

unlawful imprisonment. Id. On May 12, 2015, this Court held the petition for writ 

of habeas corpus in abeyance to permit Petitioner to return to the state courts to 
2

exhaust additional claims which had not yet been presented to the state courts. 

Dkt. No. 5. In that May 12, 2015 Order, the Court instructed Petitioner to file both 

an amended petition, presenting any new claims, and a motion to lift the stay once 

he had exhausted any new claims in the state court. See id. The Court further 

provided that he must file any amended petition and motion to lift the stay within 

sixty (60) days of the conclusion of his state court post-conviction proceedings. 

See id. 

On May 14, 2018, Petitioner moved to compel the Michigan Department of 

Corrections (“M.D.O.C.”) to provide him legal assistance from the Legal Writers 

Program regarding an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme 

Court. Dkt. No. 28. 

This motion to compel is presently before the Court [28]. For the reasons 

that follow, the motion is DENIED [28]. It is futile for Petitioner to file an 

application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. Additionally, 

the Court will order the Clerk of the Court to reopen this case to the Court’s active 

docket and to serve a copy of this order on the Respondent and the Michigan 

Attorney General. The Court will also amend the case caption to reflect 

Petitioner’s current warden, Les Parish. 

Jackson must file an amended habeas petition within one hundred and 
3

twenty (120) days from the date of this order. The Court will also set a deadline 

for Respondent to file an answer and the Rule 5 materials.

II. Discussion

In his motion for legal assistance, Petitioner claims that the prison library 

denied his request for assistance from the Legal Writers Program regarding the

filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. The 

Michigan Court of Appeals’ March 29, 2018 denial of his post-conviction appeal

gave rise to Petitioner’s application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme 

Court. Petitioner claims that he has until May 24, 2018 to file an application for 

leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Prisoners, however, do not have a constitutional right to legal advice from 

another prisoner. Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 230 (2001). Indeed, “prison 

officials may prohibit or limit ‘jailhouse lawyering’ unless doing so interferes with 

inmates’ ability to present his grievances to a court.” See Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 

175 F.3d 378, 395 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Gibbs v. Hopkins, 10 F.3d 373, 378 

(6th Cir. 1993)). Petitioner successfully filed a post-conviction motion for relief 

from judgment with the trial court and a post-conviction appeal in the Michigan 

Court of Appeals. Consequently, it is unclear why he is requesting legal assistance 

with his post-conviction appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court.
4

But even if the Court were to order the M.D.O.C. to provide Petitioner a 

legal writer, that order would be futile; Jackson’s deadline for filing an application 

for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court has expired. Specifically, 

following the denial of his post-conviction appeal by the Michigan Court of 

Appeals, Jackson had fifty-six (56) days to file a delayed application for leave to 

appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. See M.C.R. 7.305(C)(2)(a). Jackson 

was therefore required to file an application for leave to appeal no later than May 

24, 2018. Therefore, Jackson can no longer file an application for leave to appeal 

to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Court will accordingly deny Petitioner’s 

motion as moot.1

III. Conclusion

As Petitioner’s post-conviction proceedings in the state court have

concluded, his habeas case is ripe for consideration. The Court orders the Clerk of 

the Court to reopen the case to the Court’s docket. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Jones, 

625 F. Supp. 2d 552, 559 (E.D. Mich. 2009). The Clerk of the Court shall serve a 

copy of this Order on the Respondent and the Attorney General for the State of 

Michigan by first class mail as provided in Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 

Cases. See Coffee v. Harry, 2005 WL 1861943, at* 2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2005).

 1

 The denial of the motion is without prejudice to Petitioner successfully arguing

that the denial of prisoner legal assistance constitutes cause for excusing his failure 
5

The Court also orders that the caption in this case be amended to reflect the 

proper respondent, Les Parish, who is the warden of the prison where Jackson is 

incarcerated. See Edwards v. Johns, 450 F. Supp. 2d 755, 757 (E.D. Mich. 2006); 

see also Rule 2(a), 28 foll. U.S.C. § 2254. 

The Court grants Petitioner a one hundred and twenty (120) day extension 

of time to file an amended habeas petition. See, e.g., Hill v. Mitchell, 30 F. Supp. 

2d 997, 998 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (providing habeas petitioner an extension of time in 

which to file an amended habeas petition). 

Respondent must file an answer to the original or amended petitions within 

one hundred and eighty (180) days from the later of (1) the date on which the 

amended petition is filed or (2) the date on which the period for filing an amended 

petition expires. The Rule 5 materials must accompany the Respondent’s answer. 

See Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 653–54 (6th Cir. 2002); Rules Governing § 

2254 Cases, Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

Petitioner has forty five (45) days from the receipt of the answer to file a 

reply brief, if he so chooses. See Rule 5(e) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

to file an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
6

Dated: June 15, 2018 /s/Gershwin A. Drain 

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

June 15, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

/s/ Tanya Bankston

Deputy Clerk