The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SAMUEL LAWRENCE WOOD,
Petitioner, Civil No. 2:20-CV-12576
Honorable George Caram Steeh
United States District Judge
v.
MIKE BROWN,
Respondent.
___________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 20) AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration in the above matter. For
the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Petitioner in a consolidated petition challenged his state court
conviction for two counts of second-degree murder, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons’ (“BOP”) failure to give him proper sentencing credit by refusing to
nunc pro tunc designate the state prison as the place of confinement on his
federal convictions out of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, and the judge’s failure to apply § 5G1.3 of the United
States Sentencing Guidelines to grant a downward departure on
petitioner’s federal sentence based on his sentence on his state court
conviction for second-degree murder.
This Court dismissed the portion of the petition challenging the
second-degree murder conviction without prejudice, because petitioner
failed to show that he had exhausted his state court remedies with respect
to those claims. The Court ruled that any challenge by petitioner to his
federal conviction needed to be brought as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 before the
federal judge that sentenced petitioner. The Court further concluded that
jurisdiction over the portion of the petition addressing the BOP’s failure to
retroactively designate state prison as the place of confinement for
petitioner’s federal conviction lay in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Michigan and ordered the remainder of the petition
transferred to that district.
Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner
challenges this Court’s ruling that petitioner had not exhausted his claims
challenging his state court convictions.
U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (g) allows a party to file a motion
for reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration which presents
the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by
reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v.
Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). A
motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant demonstrates a
palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled and
show that correcting the defect will lead to a different disposition of the
case. See DirecTV, Inc. v. Karpinsky, 274 F. Supp. 2d 918, 921 (E.D. Mich.
2003).
Petitioner in his motion for reconsideration argues that he did exhaust
his claims because he filed a post-conviction motion for relief from
judgment with the Genesee County Circuit Court, which the trial judge
denied. Petitioner has attached the motion for relief from judgment and the
trial judge’s order denying the motion to his motion for reconsideration.
(ECF No. 20, PageID. 1370-95).
The problem with petitioner’s argument is that there is no indication in
the motion for reconsideration that petitioner appealed the denial of the
motion for relief from judgment to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the
Michigan Supreme Court.
In order to properly exhaust a claim on state post-conviction review, a
habeas petitioner is required to present that claim in his or her post-
conviction motion before the state trial court and in his or her post-
conviction appeal to the state’s appellate courts. See Smith v. Gaetz, 565
F.3d 346, 352 (7th Cir. 2009). Under Michigan law, petitioner had the
ability to appeal the denial of the motion for relief from judgment to the
Michigan appellate courts. See Nasr v. Stegall, 978 F. Supp. 714, 717
(E.D. Mich. 1997). Where a habeas petitioner has an opportunity under
state law to file an appeal following the state trial court’s denial of his or her
state post-conviction motion, the petitioner has yet to exhaust his or her
state court remedies. See Cox v. Cardwell, 464 F. 2d 639, 644-45 (6th Cir.
1972). Petitioner was required to appeal the denial of his post-conviction
motion to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court
in order to properly exhaust his claims. See e.g. Mohn v. Bock, 208 F.
Supp. 2d 796, 800 (E.D. Mich. 2002). A criminal defendant in Michigan has
six months from the denial of a motion for relief from judgment by the trial
court to file an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Court of
Appeals. M.C.R. 6.509 (A); M.C.R. 7.205(G)(3). The judge denied
petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment on April 1, 2016. Petitioner had
until October 1, 2016 to file an application for leave to appeal to the
Michigan Court of Appeals. Petitioner does not allege in his motion that he
appealed the denial of his motion to the Michigan appellate courts. This
Court also searched Westlawnext and there is no indication that petitioner
filed any post-conviction appeals in this or any other case. 1
The Court denies the motion for reconsideration because petitioner
failed to show that this Court erred in ruling that petitioner had failed to
exhaust his claims with respect to his state court convictions.
A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a
motion for reconsideration in a habeas case. See e.g. Amr v. U.S., 280 F.
App’x. 480, 486 (6th Cir. 2008). This Court will deny petitioner a certificate
of appealability, because jurists of reason would not find this Court’s
resolution of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration to be debatable.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 20) is
DENIED. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Dated: August 5, 2021
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 See www.1.next.westlaw.com. Public records and government documents, including
those available from reliable sources on the Internet, are subject to judicial notice. See
Daniel v. Hagel, 17 F. Supp. 3d 680, 681, n. 1 (E.D. Mich. 2014); United States ex. rel.
Dingle v. BioPort Corp., 270 F. Supp. 2d 968, 972 (W.D. Mich. 2003).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
August 5, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Samuel Wood #709359, Kinross Correctional Facility,
4533 W. Industrial Park Drive, Kincheloe, MI 49788.
s/Brianna Sauve
Deputy Clerk