Mester v. State of Michigan, No. 2:2018cv12623 - Document 3 (E.D. Mich. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

Download PDF
Mester v. State of Michigan Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STEVEN A. MESTER, Petitioner, Civil No. 18-CV-12623 Honorable Terrence G. Berg v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, Respondent. _______________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner Steven A. Mester is in the custody of the Indiana Department of Corrections serving a five-year sentence for operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life. He has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging a detainer issued by the State of Michigan. The Court finds that the petition is duplicative of another case pending in this District and dismisses the petition without prejudice. Approximately two months before he filed the pending petition, Petitioner filed another habeas petition in this Court. Mester v. Michigan, No. 18-11933. That first petition challenges the same detainer challenged in the pending matter and is identical in substance to the instant petition. “[A] a suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief Dockets.Justia.com do not significantly differ between the two actions.” Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A district court may dismiss a habeas petition when it is duplicative of another pending habeas petition. See Davis v. U.S. Parole Commission, No. 88-5905, 1989 WL 25837 (6th Cir. 1989); Marks v. Wolfenbarger, No. 2:06-cv-14325, 2006 WL 2850340, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 3, 2006). This petition is duplicative of the earlier-filed petition and shall be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Reasonable jurists would not debate the Court’s decision that the petition is duplicative of an earlier-filed petition and should be dismissed on that basis. The Court therefore DECLINES to grant a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). SO ORDERED. Dated: September 28, 2018 s/Terrence G. Berg TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed, and the parties and/or counsel of record were served on September 28, 2018. s/A. Chubb Case Manager 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.