Matthews v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES ARTHUR MATTHEWS, #251604,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:21-CV-11493

v. HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

MIKE BROWN,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

I.

Michigan prisoner James Arthur Matthews (“Petitioner”), currently confined

at the Kinross Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted of

second-degree murder pursuant to a plea in the Wayne County Circuit Court and was

sentenced to 30 to 50 years imprisonment in 2012. See Petitioner’s Offender Profile,

Michigan Department of Corrections Offender Tracking Information System

(“OTIS”), http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=251604.

On his form petition, Petitioner seeks release from custody and to be cleared of

all charges, but he does not list his habeas claims nor indicate that he has exhausted

any potential claims in the state courts. ECF No. 1, PageId.1-14. Instead, he attaches

several documents full of legal jargon essentially challenging the state court’s

jurisdiction and seeking to vacate his criminal judgment. ECF No. 1, PageID.15-76.

II.

Promptly after the filing of a habeas petition, a federal court must undertake a

preliminary review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from the

face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to

relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 2243 (directing courts to grant the writ or order the respondent to answer “unless it

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

thereto”); Perez v. Hemingway, 157 F. Supp. 2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001)

(discussing authority of federal courts to summarily dismiss § 2241 petitions). If the

court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court must summarily

dismiss the petition. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal

courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally

insufficient on its face”); Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district

court has duty to “screen out” petitions that lack merit on their face). A dismissal

under Rule 4 applies to petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those

containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke,

-2-

178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). A petition may also be summarily dismissed

where the allegations are so “vague (or) conclusory” that they do not “point to a real

possibility of constitutional error.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 n.7 (1977)

(internal citations omitted).

Pleadings filed by prisoners who are unrepresented by legal counsel are

liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Nonetheless,

even a pro se prisoner’s habeas petition must set forth a claim upon which federal

habeas relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (providing that a complaint must

set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief”); see also Rule 2(c) and (d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

(providing that an application for writ of habeas corpus shall be in the form of a

petition which specifies each ground for relief). “[A] claim for relief in habeas corpus

must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a

statement of the facts which entitle the Petitioner to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518

U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996) (internal citations omitted); see also Perez, 157 F. Supp. 2d

at 796 (a habeas petition “must set forth facts that give rise to a cause of action under

federal law or it may summarily be dismissed.”).

Petitioner fails to meet such pleading standards. His habeas petition and

supporting documents do not clearly set forth his habeas claims, nor do they provide

-3-

clear factual allegations or an arguable legal basis for habeas relief. Rather, his

documents are full of legal terms and language, most of which are inapplicable to state

criminal prosecutions and federal habeas review. Such a conclusory petition fails to

comply with the federal rules governing civil procedure and habeas cases. Conclusory

allegations are insufficient to warrant federal habeas relief. See, e.g., Cross v. Stovall,

238 F. App’x 32, 39-40 (6th Cir. 2007); Workman v. Bell, 178 F.3d 759, 771 (6th Cir.

1998); see also Washington v. Renico, 455 F.3d 722, 733 (6th Cir. 2006) (bald

assertions and conclusory allegations are insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing

on habeas review).1

Additionally, it is well-settled that a state prisoner filing a petition for a writ of

1The Court notes that to the extent that Petitioner raises state court

jurisdictional defects as a basis for relief, he fails to state a viable habeas claim.

The determination of whether a particular state court is vested with jurisdiction

under state law and is the proper venue to hear a criminal case is a “function of the

state courts, not the federal judiciary.” Wills v. Egeler, 532 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th

Cir. 1976); see also Hamby-Bey v. Bergh, No. 08-CV-13284, 2008 WL 3286227,

*2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2008); Chandler v. Curtis, No. 05-CV-72608-DT, 2005

WL 1640083, *2 (E.D. Mich. July 13, 2005); Groke v. Trombley, No.

01-CV-10045-BC, 2003 WL 1798109, *5 (E.D. Mich. April 1, 2003); accord

Wright v. Angelone, 151 F.3d 151, 157-58 (4th Cir. 1998); Rhode v. Olk-Long, 84

F.3d 284, 287 (8th Cir. 1996). A perceived violation of state law does not provide

a basis for federal habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). A

state court’s interpretation of state jurisdictional issues conclusively establishes

jurisdiction for purposes of federal habeas review. Strunk v. Martin, 27 F. App’x

473, 475, 2001 WL 1450740, *2 (6th Cir. 2001). Petitioner thus fails to state a

claim upon which habeas relief may be granted as to such jurisdictional challenges.

-4-

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must first exhaust available state court

remedies. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (“state prisoners must

give the state courts one full fair opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by

invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process”);

Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994). The claims must be “fairly presented”

to the state courts, meaning that the petitioner must have asserted both the factual and

legal bases for the claims in the state courts. McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F.3d 674, 681

(6th Cir. 2000); see also Williams v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789, 806 (6th Cir. 2006)

(citing McMeans). The claims must also be raised in the state courts as federal

constitutional issues. Koontz v. Glossa, 731 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir. 1984). A

Michigan prisoner must raise each issue he or she seeks to present in a federal habeas

proceeding to both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court

to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir.

1990); Welch v. Burke, 49 F. Supp. 2d 992, 998 (E.D. Mich. 1999). The burden is on

the petitioner to prove exhaustion. Rust, 17 F.3d at 160.

Petitioner neither alleges nor establishes that he has fully exhausted available

state court remedies as to his potential habeas claims before seeking review in federal

court. Moreover, the Court’s own online research indicates that Petitioner has not

pursued a direct appeal or collateral review of his conviction and sentence in the state

-5-

courts. His habeas petition is thus subject to summary dismissal.2

III.

For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Petitioner fails to satisfy the

pleading standards applicable to federal habeas cases and that Petitioner fails to show

that he exhausted available state court remedies as to any potential habeas claims.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition for a

writ of habeas corpus.

Before Petitioner may appeal, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue

only if a habeas petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a court denies relief on the

merits, the substantial showing threshold is met if the petitioner demonstrates that

reasonable jurists would find the court’s assessment of the constitutional claim

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). When a court

denies relief on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability should issue if it is

shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petitioner states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find

2The Court also notes that the habeas petition appears to be untimely under

the one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas actions. See 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d).

-6-

it debatable whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Petitioner makes no such showing. Accordingly, the

Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

Lastly, the Court concludes that appeal from this decision cannot be taken in

good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. This case is CLOSED. No further

pleadings should be filed in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Denise Page Hood

DENISE PAGE HOOD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 29, 2022

-7-