1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SHANNON R. HOWARD, #618939, 

Petitioner, 

 Case No. 15-cv-10264 

v. 

 HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

SHAWN BREWER, 

 Respondent. 

_______________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER 

(1) SUMMARILY DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; (2) 

DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; AND (3) DENYING 

LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Petitioner Shannon Howard, confined at the Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson, 

Michigan, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his 

habeas application, Petitioner challenges his conviction for attempted receiving and concealing 

stolen property over $ 20,000.00, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.535(2)(A). For the reasons stated 

below, the Court summarily denies the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

II. BACKGROUND 

Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to the above charge in the Wayne County Circuit 

Court. Although initially sentenced to probation, Petitioner was sentenced to one-to-five years in 

prison on August 1, 2007. 

The Michigan Department of Corrections Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS), 

which this Court is permitted to take judicial notice of, see Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 323 F. Supp. 

2d 818, 821 n.3 (E.D. Mich. 2004), indicates that Petitioner was discharged from his sentence on 

2:15-cv-10264-MAG-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 10/07/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 205
2 

April 28, 2012. Petitioner remains incarcerated on an unrelated conviction for second-degree 

murder and fleeing and eluding a police officer. 

 On January 14, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1), in 

which he seeks habeas relief from his attempted receiving and concealing stolen property 

conviction.1

 Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 12). As part of the motion, 

Respondent contends that the petition should be dismissed, because Petitioner is no longer in 

custody for this conviction, having been discharged from his sentence. 

 Petitioner filed a response to the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 15). 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Jurisdiction 

The Court agrees with Respondent that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the habeas 

petition, due to the fact that the Petitioner is no longer in custody for his conviction, as he has 

now been discharged from his sentence. Therefore, the petition is denied. 

 The language of § 2241(c)(3) and § 2254(a) require that a habeas petitioner be “in 

custody” under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time that a habeas petition is filed 

in the federal court. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-491 (1989). A habeas petitioner is 

no longer “in custody,” for purposes of a conviction imposed, after the sentence on that 

conviction has fully expired. Id. at 492-493; see also Clemons v. Mendez, 121 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 

1102 (E.D. Mich. 2000). The “in custody” requirement is jurisdictional. See Foster v. Booher, 

296 F.3d 947, 949 (10th Cir. 2002). Because Petitioner’s sentence has expired on this 

conviction, he is no longer in custody on this conviction, and, therefore, this Court lacks subject 

 

1

 Under the prison mailbox rule, this Court will assume that Petitioner actually filed his habeas 

petition on January 14, 2015, the date that it was signed and dated. See Towns v. United States,

190 F.3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 1999). 

2:15-cv-10264-MAG-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 10/07/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 206
3 

matter jurisdiction over his habeas petition with respect to this conviction. See Steverson v. 

Summers, 258 F. 3d 520, 523 (6th Cir. 2001). 

 Additionally, once a habeas petitioner’s sentence for a conviction has completely expired, 

the collateral consequences of that conviction are insufficient to render a habeas petitioner “in 

custody.” Clemons v. Mendez, 121 F. Supp. 2d at 1102-03. The collateral consequences of a 

conviction, such as the inability to vote, engage in certain businesses, hold public office, or serve 

on a jury are insufficient to satisfy the “in custody” requirement under the habeas statute. See 

Leslie v. Randle, 296 F. 3d 518, 522 (6th Cir. 2002). Because Petitioner is no longer in custody 

for the offense of attempting receiving and concealing stolen property, he cannot maintain a 

habeas challenge against this conviction.2

B. Certificate of Appealability and Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal 

 In order to obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner must make a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A certificate of 

appealability may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of 

a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “The district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 11(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

 When a district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the 

prisoner’s underlying constitutional claims, a certificate of appealability should issue, and an 

appeal of the district court’s order may be taken, if the petitioner shows that jurists of reason 

 

2

 Because the Court is denying the petition on the ground that Petitioner is no longer in custody 

for this conviction, it is unnecessary for the Court to address Respondent’s alternate argument 

that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by the one-year statute of 

limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Further, the Court rejects Petitioner’s argument 

that Respondent’s motion should be struck as untimely filed; in fact, the motion was filed on July 

24, 2015, which was three days prior to the deadline for filing a response to the petition. 

2:15-cv-10264-MAG-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 10/07/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 207
4 

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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). When a plain procedural 

bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable 

jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the 

petition should be allowed to proceed further. In such a circumstance, no appeal would be 

warranted. Id. 

 In this case, the Court denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability because reasonable 

jurists would not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in determining that Petitioner 

failed to meet the “in custody” requirement for maintaining a habeas action with respect to his 

conviction. See, e.g., Finkelstein v. Spitzer, 155 F.3d 131, 133 (2nd Cir. 2006). 

The Court also denies Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis because the appeal 

would be frivolous. Myers v. Straub, 159 F. Supp. 2d 621, 629 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 Based upon the foregoing, the Court summarily denies the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. The Court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability and denies Petitioner 

permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 7, 2015 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

 

2:15-cv-10264-MAG-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 10/07/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 208
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and 

any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 7, 2015. 

 s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams 

 Case Manager 

2:15-cv-10264-MAG-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 10/07/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 209