1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

GREGORY BROADENAX, 

 

 Petitioner, Case Number 14-cv-14027 

 Judge Matthew F. Leitman 

STEVE RIVARD, 

 

 Respondent. 

__________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS (ECF #1), VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

(ECF #4), DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND 

DENYING PERMISSION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL 

I. Introduction

 In 1979, Petitioner Gregory Broadenax, (“Petitioner”) pleaded guilty in state 

court to a charge of second-degree murder, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.317. 

Petitioner is serving a life sentence for that plea-based conviction with the 

Michigan Department of Corrections. Petitioner has now filed a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See the “Petition,” ECF #1.) 

The Petition argues that the state trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over 

Petitioner’s case. (See id.) 

After preliminary review of the Petition, the Court ordered Petitioner to 

show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the 

2:14-cv-14027-MFL-MJH Doc # 7 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 67
2 

one-year statute of limitations. (See the “Show Cause Order,” ECF #4.) Petitioner 

thereafter filed a response to the Show Cause Order arguing that because he is 

raising a jurisdictional claim, the statute of limitations does not apply to the 

Petition. (See ECF #6.) For the reasons stated below, the Court vacates the Show 

Cause Order, dismisses the Petition as untimely, denies Petitioner a certificate of 

appealability, and denies Petitioner permission to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal. 

II. Procedural History

 Following his plea-based conviction and sentence, Petitioner filed a belated 

motion in state court to withdraw his plea. Petitioner thereafter appealed his 

conviction, and on August 5, 1991, the Michigan Supreme Court denied his 

application for leave to appeal. See People v. Broadenax, No. 90806 (Mich. Sup. 

Ct. Aug. 5, 1991). According to the allegations in the Petition, Petitioner appears 

to have filed a second post-conviction proceeding in the state trial court sometime 

in 1992. Petitioner then pursued another appeal through the Michigan Supreme 

Court, which denied relief on March 29, 1994. See People v. Broadenax, 444 

Mich. 985, 518 N.W.2d 482 (Mich. 1994) (Table). Petitioner filed the instant 

Petition over twenty years later, on October 20, 2014. 

2:14-cv-14027-MFL-MJH Doc # 7 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 68
3 

III. Discussion

 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a 

one-year statute of limitations applies to an application for writ of habeas corpus 

by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court. The one-year 

limitations period runs from the latest of: 

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of 

direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; 

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created 

by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United 

States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such 

State action; 

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially 

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly 

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to 

cases on collateral review; or 

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims 

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due 

diligence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

 Absent tolling, a petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed where 

it has not been filed before the limitations period expires. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(d)(1); see also Allen v. Yukins, 366 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2004). 

 There is no dispute in this matter as to whether the statute of limitations for 

an attack on Petitioner’s conviction expired before Petitioner filed his instant 

2:14-cv-14027-MFL-MJH Doc # 7 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 69
4 

Petition. It plainly did. The relevant judgment was entered in 1979, and the 

Michigan Supreme Court last denied relief in 1994. Since the time for seeking 

further direct review in the United States Supreme Court expired prior to the 

effective date of the AEDPA, Petitioner had until April 23, 1997 – one year 

following the date that AEDPA became effective – to file a federal habeas petition 

attacking the original judgment. See Stokes v. Williams, 475 F.3d 732, 733-34 (6th 

Cir. 2007) (a petitioner's conviction that became final before AEDPA became law 

is entitled to a one-year grace period from April 24, 1996, to April 23, 1997). 

Petitioner failed to meet this deadline, and the statute of limitations for a habeas 

attack on the original judgment expired on April 23, 1997. Petitioner does not 

dispute this point. 

 Instead, Petitioner argues that because he is challenging the subject-matter 

jurisdiction of the trial court, the limitations period does not apply to his case. 

Petitioner is incorrect. Indeed, federal courts – including this Court – have 

consistently held that “there is no exception” to AEDPA’s one-year statute of 

limitation “for subject matter jurisdiction claims.” Griffin v. Padula, 518 

F.Supp.2d 671, 677 (D.S.C. 2007) (internal quotation marks and alteration 

omitted); see also Hornsby v. Booker, 06-cv-12608, 2007 WL 1499839, at *1 

(E.D. Mich. May 22, 2007) (denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and 

2:14-cv-14027-MFL-MJH Doc # 7 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 70
5 

reiterating that “a prisoner filing a habeas corpus petition is not exempt from the 

statute of limitations simply because the prisoner raises a claim that the state court 

lacked jurisdiction”); Umbarger v. Burt, 2008 WL 3911988, at *1-2 (W.D. Mich. 

Aug. 19, 2008) (same; collecting cases); Meadows v. Warden, Allen Correctional 

Institution, 2011 WL 4442644, at *4-*5 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2011) (report and 

recommendation) (concluding that “[f]ederal courts considering whether subject 

matter jurisdiction claims provide an exemption from the AEDPA’s statute of 

limitations have uniformly rejected such claims”), adopted at 2011 WL 4434877 

(S.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2011); Gladden v. Blount Cnty., 2013 WL 5707319 (N.D. 

Ala. Oct. 21, 2013), at *4 (collecting cases). Petitioner cites no authority to the 

contrary. The Court therefore concludes that Petitioner's subject-matter 

jurisdiction claim does not exempt him from complying with the statute of 

limitations. Because the time by which Petitioner needed to file his current Petition 

has long expired, the Petition is untimely, and the Court denies Petitioner habeas 

relief on that basis.

III. Conclusion and Certificate of Appealability

 Before Petitioner may appeal this Court’s denial of his habeas petition, a 

certificate of appealability must be issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); see also 

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the 

2:14-cv-14027-MFL-MJH Doc # 7 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 71
6 

applicant has made 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 claim debatable or wrong. See Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). When a court denies relief on procedural 

grounds without addressing the merits, 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 it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling. See id. Having undertaken the requisite review, the Court concludes that 

jurists of reason could not find debatable the Court’s procedural ruling here that the 

Petition is untimely. The Court will additionally deny Petitioner permission to 

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis because any appeal would be frivolous. 

 

2:14-cv-14027-MFL-MJH Doc # 7 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 72
7 

IV. Order

 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus (ECF #1) is DENIED; that the Show Cause Order (ECF 

#4) is vacated; and that the Petition and this action are DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and 

permission to appeal in forma pauperis are DENIED. 

 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: January 12, 2015 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on January 12, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

 

2:14-cv-14027-MFL-MJH Doc # 7 Filed 01/12/15 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 73