The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES CORNELIUS BROWN,
Petitioner, Case No. 19-cv-10975
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
MICHAEL BURGESS,1
Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND (ECF No. 17)
Petitioner James Cornelius Brown is a state inmate in the custody of the
Michigan Department of Corrections. In 2014, a jury in the Wayne County Circuit
Court convicted Brown of four counts of first-degree murder; four counts of
disinterment, mutilation, defacement, or carrying away of a human body; and two
counts of arson. He is presently serving four terms of life without parole at the Oaks
Correctional Facility in Manistee, Michigan.
On April 1, 2019, Brown filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See Pet., ECF No. 1.) In the petition,
1 The Court hereby amends the case caption to reflect the proper Respondent,
Petitioner’s current custodian, Michael Burgess. See Edwards v. Johns, 450
F.Supp.2d 755, 757 (E.D. Mich. 2006). See also Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule
2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
Brown seeks relief from his state-court convictions. (See id.) Respondent filed an
answer to the petition on October 8, 2019. (See Ans., ECF No. 9.)
On July 28, 2021, Brown filed a motion to amend the Memorandum of Law
that he submitted with the petition. (See Mot., ECF No. 17.) In the motion, Brown
explains that he is neither raising a new ground for relief nor expanding the factual
record. (See id., PageID.3932.) Instead, Brown says that he “seeks solely to
strengthen the Harmless Error Standard” portion of his legal argument. (Id.)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to federal habeas proceedings as
long as they are not “inconsistent with any statutory provisions or [the habeas]
rules.’” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 654 (2005) (citing Rule 11, Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts). Rule 15, which governs
motions to amend, permits a habeas petitioner to amend pleadings by leave “any
time during a proceeding.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Rule 15 further instructs
that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). The “liberal policy” of Rule 15(a) is meant “to ensure the determination of
claims on their merits.” Id. (citing Marks v. Shell Oil Co., 830 F.2d 68, 69 (6th Cir.
1987)).
After considering the relevant factors, the Court concludes that the appropriate
course of action is to allow Brown to file his proposed amended memorandum
without passing any judgment on the merits of the legal arguments included in that
memorandum. Brown’s motion to amend the Memorandum of Law submitted with
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 17) is therefore GRANTED.
Respondent may raise any and all arguments in response to Brown’s amended
memorandum (including but not limited to the argument that Brown’s new legal
arguments are time barred) in a supplemental answer to the petition. If Respondent
wishes to file such a supplemental answer, he shall do so by no later than February
7, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 8, 2021
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on December 8, 2021, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(810) 341-9761