UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CURTIS JONES, #221006,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-14253

v. HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

DUNCAN MACLAREN,

Respondent.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY,

AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

I. Introduction

Michigan prisoner Curtis Jones (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his current confinement. 

Petitioner contests a 2004 prison contraband conviction, which was imposed following a

guilty plea in the Lapeer County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to one year and one day

to five years in prison on that conviction. Petitioner also contests a 2014 parole denial

decision.1

In his first habeas claim, Petitioner asserts that he was denied his Sixth Amendment

right to appellate counsel under Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 (2005), in pursuing an

appeal of his 2004 prison contraband conviction. In his second habeas claim, Petitioner

1

Petitioner is also serving a life sentence for second-degree murder, a two-year

sentence for felony firearm, and a two to five-year sentence for the delivery or

manufacture of less than 50 grams of cocaine. See Offender Profile, Michigan

Department of Corrections Offender Tracking Information System (“OTIS”), 

http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=221006.

2:14-cv-14253-DPH-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 01/30/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 137
asserts that he was denied parole in February, 2014 based upon juvenile adjudications

which occurred in the absence of counsel. In his third habeas claim, Petitioner asserts that

his 2004 pre-sentence report contains improper references to those juvenile adjudications 

which occurred in the absence of counsel and to juvenile adjudications where he was not

informed of his rights to appeal and to counsel, that he did not have an opportunity to

review that pre-sentence report, and that the alleged improper information is being used

to deny him parole. Petitioner states that he has filed motions in the state trial court and/or

administrative grievances concerning his issues (some of which he alleges have not been

ruled upon), and indicates that he has not fully exhausted his claims in the state courts.

For the reasons stated herein, the Court dismisses without prejudice the petition for

a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also denies a certificate of appealability and denies

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

II. Analysis

A. 2004 Contraband Conviction Claims

In his first claim and in part of his second and/or third claims, Petitioner challenges

his 2004 contraband conviction and sentence. A prisoner filing a habeas petition under 28

U.S.C. §2254 must first exhaust all state 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). To satisfy this

requirement, the claims must be “fairly presented” to the state courts, meaning that the

prisoner 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.

2

2:14-cv-14253-DPH-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 01/30/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 138
Anderson, 460 F.3d 789, 806 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing McMeans). The claims must also be

presented to the state courts as federal constitutional issues. Koontz v. Glossa, 731 F.2d

365, 368 (6th Cir. 1984). Each issue must be presented to the Michigan Court of Appeals

and the Michigan Supreme Court to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. Welch v. Burke,

49 F. Supp. 2d 992, 998 (E.D. Mich. 1999); see also Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 483

(6th Cir. 1990). While the exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, a “strong

presumption” exists that a prisoner must exhaust available state remedies before seeking

federal habeas review. Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 131, 134-35 (1987). The burden

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

In this case, Petitioner admits that he has not exhausted his habeas claims

concerning his 2004 contraband conviction and sentence in the Michigan courts before

proceeding on federal habeas review. Petitioner has an available avenue for relief in the

state court system such that his pursuit of state court remedies would not be futile. For

example, he may file a motion for relief from judgment with the state trial court under

Michigan Court Rule 6.500 et seq. and seek further review in the state appellate courts as

necessary. The unexhausted claims should be addressed to, and considered by, the state

courts in the first instance. Otherwise, the Court cannot apply the standard found at 28

U.S.C. § 2254. A non-prejudicial dismissal of those claims is therefore appropriate.

B. Parole Denial Claims

In his second and third habeas claims, Petitioner challenges his 2014 parole denial,

particularly the alleged reliance upon his juvenile adjudications to deny him parole. 

Petitioner, however, has already filed federal habeas petitions concerning those juvenile

adjudications and his 2014 parole denial which remain pending in federal court. See Jones

3

2:14-cv-14253-DPH-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 01/30/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 139
v. MacLaren, No. 2:14-CV-00102 (W.D. Mich.) (juvenile adjudications); Jones v. MacLaren,

No. 4:14-CV-14205 (E.D. Mich.) (parole denial). Accordingly, the instant action as to those

claims must be dismissed as duplicative. A suit is duplicative, and subject to dismissal, if

the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions. 

See, e.g., Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (internal citations

omitted). Such is the case here. Petitioner’s claims concerning his juvenile adjudications

and his 2014 parole denial are duplicative to claims raised in the aforementioned pending

habeas actions. A non-prejudicial dismissal of those claims is therefore appropriate.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not properly

exhausted his claims concerning his 2004 contraband conviction in the state courts before

seeking federal habeas review and that his claims concerning his 2014 parole denial and

the disputed juvenile adjudications are duplicative to claims raised in two pending habeas

cases. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition for a writ

of habeas corpus. The Court makes no determination as to the timeliness or the merits of

Petitioner’s claims.

Before Petitioner may appeal the Court’s decision, a certificate of appealability must

issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may

issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a district court denies relief on procedural grounds

without addressing the merits of a claim, a certificate of appealability should issue if it is

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

4

2:14-cv-14253-DPH-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 01/30/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 140
claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484-85 (2000). Having considered the matter, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists

could not debate the correctness of the Court’s procedural ruling. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court also DENIES leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal as an appeal cannot be taken in good faith. FED. R. APP. P. 24(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: January 30, 2015

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

record on January 30, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

5

2:14-cv-14253-DPH-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 01/30/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 141