UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SEAN MICHAEL RYAN,

Petitioner,

Case No. 14-11611

v. Honorable Linda V. Parker

WILLIAM SMITH,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S (1) MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT

OF NO DEFAULT [ECF NO. 37] AND (2) MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION

OF RESPONDENT [ECF NO. 43] BUT DENYING PETITIONER’S OTHER

MOTIONS [ECF NOS. 31-34, 36, 38, 40, 41 & 46]

Michigan prisoner Sean Michael Ryan (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se

habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state

convictions for seven counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of

Michigan Compiled Laws Section 750.520b(1)(a) (penetration of a person under

thirteen years of age). Currently pending before the Court are the following

motions filed by Petitioner:

•Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 22, 2014 (ECF No. 31);

•Motion for Summary Judgment on Grounds of Intentional Delay in

Probable Cause Hearing/Arraignment, filed May 22, 2014 (ECF No.

32);

•Motion for Summary Judgment on Suppression of Exculpatory

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 1215
Evidence, filed May 22, 2014 (ECF No. 33);

•Motion for Summary Judgment on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel,

filed May 22, 2014 (ECF No. 34);

•Motion to Hold Hearing on Plaintiff’s Two Fourth Amendment

Issues, filed June 9, 2014 (ECF No. 36);

•Motion for Judgment of No Default, filed June 9, 2014 (ECF No.

37);

•Motion for Judicial Determination, filed June 9, 2014 (ECF No. 38);

•Motion for Summary Judgment on Due Process and Denial of

Fundamental Fairness Grounds, filed July 10, 2014 (ECF No. 40);

•Motion for Expedited Order on Docket Number 30, filed August 8,

2014 (ECF No. 41);

•Motion to Substitute Respondent, filed September 17, 2014 (ECF No.

43); and,

•Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel, filed October 23,

2014 (ECF No. 46).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court is granting Petitioner’s “Motion for

Judgment of No Default” and his motion for substitution of the respondent, but is

denying his other motions.

I. Background

Petitioner initially was charged with nine counts of first-degree criminal

sexual conduct. The charges arose from his young daughter’s allegations that he

sexually abused her. At Petitioner’s jury trial in the Circuit Court for Saginaw

2

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 2 of 13 Pg ID 1216
County, Michigan, Petitioner’s daughter testified that he first engaged in vaginal

intercourse and oral sex with her when she was eleven years old and that the sexual

abuse continued after that initial incident.

During pretrial interrogations by the police, Petitioner confessed that he had

engaged in numerous sex acts with his daughter, including vaginal and anal

intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus. At trial, however, he denied the allegations

and claimed that his pretrial confession was the result of being threatened by the

police and deprived of medical attention and pain medication at the time.

The jury found Petitioner guilty of seven counts of first-degree criminal

sexual conduct. The trial court subsequently sentenced Petitioner to concurrent

prison terms of twenty-five to fifty years for six of the seven counts and a

consecutive prison term of twenty-five to fifty years for the remaining count. The

Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences in a

published decision. People v. Ryan, 819 N.W.2d 55 (2012). On October 4, 2012,

the Michigan Supreme Court denied Petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Ryan,

820 N.W.2d 918 (2012) (table).

Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment in the trial

court, which the court denied after concluding that Petitioner’s claim about

appellate counsel lacked merit and that his other claims were raised on direct

3

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 3 of 13 Pg ID 1217
appeal and could not be re-litigated. Petitioner appealed the trial court’s decision,

but the Michigan Court of Appeals denied his application for leave to appeal

because Petitioner failed to establish entitlement to relief under Michigan Court

Rule 6.508(D). People v. Ryan, No. 315897 (Nov. 1, 2013). On February 28,

2014, the Michigan Supreme Court denied Petitioner leave to appeal under Rule

6.508(D). People v. Ryan, 843 N.W.2d 521 (2014) (table). Petitioner filed a

motion for reconsideration, which the Michigan Supreme Court denied on July 29,

2014. People v. Ryan, 849 N.W.2d 347 (2014) (table).

On April 17, 2014, Petitioner filed his federal habeas corpus petition. As

grounds in support of his request for relief, Petitioner asserts the following: (1) the

state courts deprived him of due process by denying his requests for an evidentiary

hearing; (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise all his claims on

direct appeal; (3) trial counsel’s omissions deprived him of effective assistance of

counsel; (4) the police delayed his probable cause hearing to obtain additional

information; (5) the prosecution relied on perjured testimony; (6) the prosecution

suppressed exculpatory evidence; (7) the police destroyed or failed to preserve

exculpatory evidence; (8) he was arrested on less than probable cause in violation

of the Fourth Amendment; (9) the trial court erroneously admitted his partially

videotaped statement to the police; (10) the cumulative effect of errors resulted in

4

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 4 of 13 Pg ID 1218
an unfair trial; (11) he is actually innocent of the crimes for which he was

convicted; and (12) the Court should grant leave to amend his petition with other

issues. In a response to the petition filed November 12, 2014, Respondent William

Smith argues that Petitioner’s claims lack merit or are not cognizable on habeas

review. (ECF No. 47.)

II. Analysis

A. Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 31-34 & 40)

Petitioner seeks summary judgment with respect to the grounds for relief

asserted in his petition. A court may grant summary judgment only if “there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Thus, “[s]ummary judgment is appropriate

if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” White v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership,

Inc., 617 F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir. 2010). When determining whether a genuine

issue of material fact exists, the court “views the evidence in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. at 476 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.

v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).

Petitioner’s motions for summary judgment raise disputed factual issues or

5

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 5 of 13 Pg ID 1219
mixed questions of law and fact, and Petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the Court is denying his motions for

summary judgment.

B. Motions for a Hearing and a Conference (ECF Nos. 36 & 42)

In his motion for a hearing (ECF No. 36), Petitioner seeks an opportunity to

litigate his Fourth Amendment claims. The Supreme Court has held, however, that

“where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth

Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief

on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was

introduced at his trial.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976) (footnote

omitted).

Petitioner claims that he was denied a full and fair hearing in state court

despite his requests for a hearing, but “the Powell ‘opportunity for full and fair

consideration’ means an available avenue for the prisoner to present his claim to

the state courts, not an inquiry into the adequacy of the procedure actually used to

resolve that particular claim.” Good v. Berghuis, 729 F.3d 636, 639 (6th Cir.

2013), cert. denied, No. 14-6114, 2015 WL 303260 (U.S. Jan. 26, 2015). 

Petitioner had an opportunity to raise his Fourth Amendment claims in state court

and, in fact, raised his claims there. (See 10/28/10-11/2/10 Hr’g Tr.) 

6

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 6 of 13 Pg ID 1220
Consequently, his Fourth Amendment claims are not cognizable on habeas review,

and he has no right to a hearing on those claims in this Court. The motion for a

hearing therefore is denied.

In his motion for a pre-hearing conference (ECF No. 42), Petitioner states

that the Court could save time and expense and prevent further illegal detention of

him by holding a conference on such issues as trial and appellate counsel’s

ineffectiveness, the prosecution’s suppression of evidence, and other issues. The

parties’ written pleadings, however, adequately address the issues, and presenting

Petitioner to the Court and conducting a pre-hearing conference will, more likely

than not, result in an unnecessary expenditure of state and federal resources. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for a pre-hearing conference also is denied.

C. Motion for Judgment of No Default (ECF No. 37)

In his “motion for judgment of no default,” Petitioner asks the Court to find

that his claim concerning appellate counsel is not procedurally defaulted. 

Petitioner raised this claim in his motion for relief from judgment. The trial court

adjudicated the claim on the merits and concluded that appellate counsel was not

ineffective. As such, it does not appear to have been procedurally defaulted.

Moreover, “[a]s [the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals] has acknowledged,

‘[p]rocedural default is normally a defense that the State is obligated to raise and

7

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 7 of 13 Pg ID 1221
preserv[e] if it is not to lose the right to assert the defense thereafter.” Grumm v.

Mitchell, – F.3d – , 2014 WL 7247393, at *26 (6th Cir. Dec. 22, 2014) (quoting

Arias v. Lafler, 511 F. App’x 440, 444 (6th Cir. 2013)). Respondent explicitly

waived the procedural-default defense in his answer to the habeas petition. (See

ECF No. 47 at 8.) This Court is not required to raise the issue sua sponte. See

Trest v. Cain, 522 U.S. 87, 89 (1997) (stating that “[a] court of appeals is not

‘required’ to raise the issue of procedural default sua sponte” because the presence

of a procedural default does not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction). As such,

the Court concludes that Petitioner’s claim concerning appellate counsel is not

procedurally defaulted and is granting his “motion for judgment of no default”.

D. Motion for a Judicial Determination (ECF No. 38)

In his next motion, Petitioner asks the Court for a judicial determination on

whether the state courts adjudicated any of his claims on the merits. State courts

generally are presumed to have adjudicated a habeas petitioner’s federal claims on

the merits. See Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088, 1096 (2013) (stating that,

“[w]hen a state court rejects a federal claim without expressly addressing that

claim, a federal habeas court must presume that the federal claim was adjudicated

on the merits– but that presumption can in some limited circumstances be

rebutted.”); see also Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 784-85 (2011) (stating

8

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 8 of 13 Pg ID 1222
that “[w]hen a federal claim has been presented to a state court and the state court

has denied relief, it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on

the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the

contrary”). Moreover, it appears that the state courts did, in fact, adjudicate

Petitioner’s claims on the merits.

Nevertheless, this Court finds it unnecessary to resolve the issue at this time

because it is possible that the Court would reach the same result whether it deferred

to the state court’s decision or reviewed the issues de novo. Cf. Cotto v. Herbert,

331 F.3d 217, 252-53 (2d Cir. 2003) (declining to decide whether the state court’s

ruling on a Sixth Amendment claim was an “adjudication on the merits” within the

meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), because the court would reach the same result

under a de novo standard of review). The Court therefore is denying Petitioner’s

motion for a judicial determination on whether the state courts adjudicated his

claims on the merits.

E. Motion for Expedited Order on Docket #30 (ECF No. 41)

In this motion, Petitioner asks the Court for an expedited order on his

“objections” to the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts’ May 13, 2014 decision denying

9

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 9 of 13 Pg ID 1223
some of his previous motions.1

 (See ECF Nos. 26, 30.) In those objections,

Petitioner takes issue with Judge Roberts’ denial of his motions seeking the

appointment of counsel, oral argument, an evidentiary hearing, appointment of

experts or investigators, a stay until the Michigan Supreme Court considers his

motion for reconsideration, an expansion of the record, a copy of all transcripts,

motions, and court records, and release on bond. Petitioner’s “objections”

essentially constitute a motion for reconsideration of Judge Roberts’ earlier

decision.

Pursuant to the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan, motions for

reconsideration will not be granted “that merely present the same issues ruled upon

by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.” E.D. Mich. LR

7.1(h)(3). Moreover, a motion for reconsideration will be granted only if the

movant “demonstrate[s] a palpable defect”, the correction of which “will result in a

different disposition of the case.” (Id.)

In his “objections”, Petitioner raises the same issues and arguments that

Judge Roberts already considered and rejected. Further, Petitioner fails to shown

that there is a palpable defect in Judge Roberts’ decision or that correcting the

1

This action initially was assigned to Judge Roberts but was reassigned to the

undersigned pursuant to Administrative Order 14-AO-030 on May 28, 2014. (ECF

No. 35.)

10

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 10 of 13 Pg ID 1224
defect will result in a different disposition of the case. In fact, some of the issues

addressed in Judge Roberts’ decision have been reasserted by Petitioner in motions

that this Court is now denying. The Court therefore denies Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration and denies as moot his motion for an expedited order.

F. Motion for Substitution of Respondent (ECF No. 43)

In this motion, Petitioner asks the Court to substitute his current warden,

Thomas P. Mackie, for William Smith, who is the warden at the Michigan

Department of Correction’s facility where Petitioner was incarcerated when he

filed his petition.

The correct respondent in a federal habeas action is the person who holds the

petitioner in custody. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242, 2243; see also Rule 2(a) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Mr. Mackie

currently holds Petitioner in custody. Accordingly, the Court is granting

Petitioner’s motion and directing the Clerk of the Court to substitute Thomas P.

Mackie as the respondent in lieu of Willie Smith.

G. Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 46)

In this final pending motion, Petitioner renews his request for appointment

of counsel. He claims that the Michigan Department of Corrections has reduced

the number of hours that prisoners may spend in the library to four hours per week

11

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 11 of 13 Pg ID 1225
and that this is an insufficient amount of time for him to perform legal research and

defend his case.

“[T]here is no constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings.” Post v.

Bradshaw, 422 F.3d 419, 425 (6th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, in addition to filing

briefs supporting claims two through ten, Petitioner has replied to Respondent’s

answer and filed approximately two dozen motions and requests in this case. The

issues appear to be sufficiently briefed, and the interests of justice do not require

appointment of counsel. The renewed motion for appointment of counsel is

denied.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons given above,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for summary judgment (ECF

Nos. 31-34 and 40) are DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for a hearing and

for a pre-hearing conference (ECF No. 36 and 42) are DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for a judgment of no

default (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for a judicial

determination on whether the state courts adjudicated his claims on the merits

12

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 12 of 13 Pg ID 1226
(ECF No. 38) is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for an expedited

order on docket #30 (ECF No. 41) is DENIED AS MOOT as his “objections” are

denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to substitute

Thomas P. Mackie as the respondent (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED and the Clerk of

the Court is directed to substitute Thomas P. Mackie for William Smith as

Respondent;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s renewed motion for

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 46) is DENIED.

S/ Linda V. Parker

LINDA V. PARKER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 11, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of

record and/or pro se parties on this date, February 11, 2015, by electronic and/or

U.S. First Class mail.

S/ Richard Loury

Case Manager

13

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 13 of 13 Pg ID 1227