UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL L. POKLADEK, 

 Petitioner, 

 CASE NO. 14-13602 

v. 

 PAUL D. BORMAN 

DWAYNE BURTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 Respondent. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (ECF No. 7), 

DENYING HIS MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF No. 8),

DENYING HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 10), 

AND ORDERING RESPONDENT TO FILE THE STATE COURT 

TRANSCRIPT FOR SEPTEMBER 4, 2013

 Petitioner Michael L. Pokladek filed a pro se habeas corpus petition on September 

15, 2014. The pleading challenges Petitioner’s plea-based conviction for attempted 

fleeing and eluding a police officer, third degree. See Mich. Comp. Law 

§257.602a(3)(a). The trial court sentenced Petitioner to probation for the crime. 

Petitioner subsequently violated the conditions of probation and apparently pleaded guilty 

to the charge of violating the conditions of probation. The trial court then sentenced 

Petitioner to imprisonment for six to thirty months. 

 Petitioner’s sole ground for relief in the habeas petition is that the state trial court 

failed to comply with a court rule at a hearing on the charge that he violated the 

conditions of probation. Petitioner contends that, as a result of the trial court’s omissions, 

2:14-cv-13602-PDB-PTM Doc # 13 Filed 11/06/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 156
2

this Court is precluded from finding that his guilty plea was voluntary, understanding, 

and accurate. 

 On March 23, 2015, respondent Dwayne Burton filed an answer to the habeas 

petition. He argues that Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable on habeas review because it 

is rooted in state law and that the Michigan Court of Appeals reasonably determined that 

Petitioner’s claim is meritless. Currently before the Court are Petitioner’s request for 

immediate release from prison (ECF No. 7), his motion to strike Respondent’s answer 

(ECF No. 8), and his motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10). Respondent has not 

filed an answer to Petitioner’s motions or request. 

I. The Request for Immediate Release and Motion to Strike (ECF Nos. 7 and 8) 

 In his request for release from prison and in his motion to strike, Petitioner claims 

Respondent’s answer to the petition is missing the even-numbered pages. Petitioner 

asserts that he cannot be expected to file a reply to the answer without the missing pages. 

Petitioner also asserts that Respondent is being deceitful and that counsel for Respondent 

violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 by not declaring 

under penalty of perjury that his answer to the petition is true and correct. 

 Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks because counsel for Respondent 

notified Petitioner in a letter dated April 14, 2015, that he was mailing a complete copy of 

his answer to Petitioner. See Letter to Michael Pokladek, ECF No. 9. Petitioner, in fact, 

concedes in his motion for summary judgment that Respondent forwarded a corrected 

copy of his answer to him. See Mot. for Summary Judgment, ECF No.10, page 1. 

2:14-cv-13602-PDB-PTM Doc # 13 Filed 11/06/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 157
3

 Furthermore, although habeas petitioners are required to sign their petitions “under 

penalty of perjury,” nothing in the habeas rules requires the respondent to sign his or her 

answer under penalty of perjury. Cf. Habeas Rule 2(c)(5) with Rule 5(b), (c), and (d). 

By presenting his signed answer to the Court, counsel for Respondent certified that, to the 

best of his knowledge, information, and belief his pleading was being presented for a 

proper purpose and that his defenses were warranted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1) and (2). 

The Court therefore denies Petitioner’s motion to strike Respondent’s answer (ECF No. 

8). 

 The Court denies Petitioner’s request for immediate release from prison (ECF No. 

7) for the same reasons and for the additional reason that the request appears to be moot. 

On June 9, 2015, Petitioner notified the Court that he has been released on parole and is 

now living at an address in Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan. See Notice of Change of 

Address, ECF No. 11. 

II. The Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) 

 In his motion for summary judgment, Petitioner challenges Respondent’s 

comment in his answer to the petition that “the September 4, 2013 transcript will reflect a 

lawful plea colloquy, dispelling Pokladek’s claims.” Answer in Opp’n to Pet. for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 5, page 24. Petitioner correctly points out that there is no 

certified record before the Court of the September 4, 2013, plea proceeding. 

 A party is entitled to summary judgment if he “shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and [he] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. 

2:14-cv-13602-PDB-PTM Doc # 13 Filed 11/06/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 158
4

R. Civ. P. 56(a). “In making that determination, a court must view the evidence ‘in the 

light most favorable to the opposing party.’ ” Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866 

(2014) (quoting Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970)). 

 Here, there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Petitioner pleaded guilty 

voluntarily and knowingly. Respondent, moreover, states in his answer to the petition 

that he has ordered the transcript for September 4, 2013, and will file it with an amended 

answer to the petition once it is received. Answer in Opp’n to Pet. for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, ECF No. 5, page 23. The Court therefore denies Petitioner’s motion for 

summary judgment (ECF No. 10). The Court nevertheless orders Respondent to file the 

transcript for the state court proceeding held on September 4, 2013, within twenty-eight 

days of the date of this order. 

 s/Paul D. Borman 

 PAUL D. BORMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: November 6, 2015 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each 

attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on 

November 6, 2015. 

 s/Deborah Tofil 

 Deborah Tofil 

 Case Manager (313)234-5122 

2:14-cv-13602-PDB-PTM Doc # 13 Filed 11/06/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 159