UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JERRON J. DAVIS, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 15-11528 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

DUNCAN MACLAREN, 

 Respondent. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS (ECF #1), DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDUAL HISTORY

 This matter has come before the Court on a pro se petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus (the “Petition”). (See ECF #1.) Petitioner Jerron J. Davis 

(“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in 

Jackson, Michigan. (See ECF #8.) Although Petitioner addressed his habeas 

petition to Michigan’s 50th judicial circuit court in Chippewa County, Michigan 

and titled his pleading a “state writ of habeas corpus,” (See ECF #1 at 1, Pg. ID 1), 

he mailed the pleading to the Clerk of this Court at its Detroit office. The Court 

thereafter entered an Order in which it directed Petitioner to “clarify, in writing, 

whether he intended to file the [Petition] with this Court as a petition for a writ of 

2:15-cv-11528-MFL-EAS Doc # 9 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 75
2

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or if he intended to file the [Petition] 

with a state court.” (ECF #5 at 2, Pg. ID 66.) Petitioner responded to that Order by 

informing the Court that he wished for “this Court [to] address the merits” of the 

Petition. (ECF #6 at 1, Pg. ID 67) (emphasis added). The Court will thus treat the 

Petition as having been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, because 

Petitioner has alleged a state-law jurisdictional claim that is not cognizable on 

federal habeas review, the Court will dismiss the Petition. 

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Preliminary Proceedings, Trial, and Sentence 

 The Petition and the attached exhibits allege that Petitioner was arrested in 

Oakland County, Michigan and arraigned in Michigan’s 48th District Court on 

August 29, 2006. (See ECF #1 at 16, Pg. ID 16.) Following a preliminary 

examination on that same day, the district court judge bound Petitioner over for 

trial in Oakland County Circuit Court on several charges. (See id. at 17-18, Pg. ID 

17-18.) On September 6, 2006, the transcript of the preliminary examination was 

filed in the circuit court, and on September 7, 2006, Petitioner was arraigned in 

circuit court. (See id. at 19, Pg. ID 19.) On September 11, 2006, the information 

was filed in the circuit court.1

 Finally, on September 13, 2006, the district court 

 

1

 An information is the charging document used in the circuit court after a criminal 

defendant is arraigned in that court and bound over for trial. 

2:15-cv-11528-MFL-EAS Doc # 9 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 76
3

judge’s “return” was filed in the circuit court. (See id.) As explained below, under 

Michigan law, it is the filing of the “return” that vests jurisdiction in the circuit 

court.

 Petitioner was later tried before a jury in Oakland County Circuit Court, and, 

on November 16, 2006, the jury found him guilty of carjacking, Mich. Comp. 

Laws §750.529a, armed robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws §750.529, first-degree home 

invasion, Mich. Comp. Laws §750.110a(2), carrying a concealed weapon, Mich. 

Comp. Laws §750.227, and three counts of possessing a firearm during the 

commission of a felony, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. (See id. at 20-21, Pg. ID 

20-21; see also id. at 48, Pg. ID 48.) On December 21, 2006, the state trial court 

sentenced Petitioner to the following sentence of imprisonment: 375 months to 

fifty years for the carjacking and robbery convictions; thirteen to twenty years for 

the home invasion conviction; two years for possessing a firearm during the 

commission of a felony conviction; and two to five years for having a concealed 

weapon conviction. (See id. at 22-27, Pg. ID 22-27; see also id. at 48, Pg. ID 48.) 

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s convictions, see People v. 

Davis, No. 275478, 2008 WL 649803 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2008) 

(unpublished), and, on July 29, 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to 

appeal. See People v. Davis, 753 N.W.2d 179 (2008). 

2:15-cv-11528-MFL-EAS Doc # 9 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 77
4

B. The State Habeas Complaint and Subsequent Appeals

 It appears that, in 2014, Petitioner filed a state complaint for a writ of habeas 

corpus in Chippewa County, Michigan. (See ECF #1 at 31, Pg. ID 31.) Petitioner 

claimed that the state circuit court lacked jurisdiction because it began the 

proceedings against him before the filing of the “return.” (See id. at 32-35, Pg. ID 

32-35.) On September 9, 2014, Chippewa County Circuit Judge James P. Lambros 

(“Judge Lambros”) dismissed the complaint. (See id.) Judge Lambros ruled that 

habeas corpus “was an improper method of review” because “the arguments 

propounded by [Petitioner] did not divest the [circuit court] of jurisdiction.” (Id. at 

34, Pg ID 34.) Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration. (See id. at 36-45, 

Pg. ID 36-45.) On October 1, 2014, Judge Lambros reaffirmed his opinion and 

order dismissing the habeas complaint and denied Petitioner’s motion for 

reconsideration. (See ECF #1-1 at 2, Pg. ID 52.) 

 Petitioner attempted to appeal Judge Lambros’ decision, but the Michigan 

Court of Appeals declined to file his appeal because he failed to pay the filing fee 

in a timely manner. (See id. at 3, Pg. ID 53.) Petitioner then attempted to file an 

appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. On March 5, 2015, that court returned 

Petitioner’s pleading and ordered him to pay an initial partial filing fee of $21.00 

within twenty-one days of the court’s order. See Davis v. Kinross Corr. Facility 

2:15-cv-11528-MFL-EAS Doc # 9 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 78
5

Warden, 859 N.W.2d 711 (Mich. 2015). On March 31, 2015, the Michigan 

Supreme Court closed its file because Petitioner failed to comply with the court’s 

order directing him to pay a partial filing fee. See Davis v. Kinross Corr. Facility 

Warden, 861 N.W.2d 6 (Mich. 2015). 

C. The Federal Habeas Petition 

 On April 28, 2015, Petitioner filed the Petition in this Court. (See ECF #1.) 

Petitioner seeks to be discharged from state custody on the basis that the Oakland 

County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct any proceedings in his criminal 

case. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the circuit court received the transcript of 

the preliminary examination, arraigned him, and filed the criminal complaint 

before the state district-court magistrate filed her return and conferred jurisdiction 

on the circuit court. 

ANALYSIS

A. Exhaustion, Procedural Default, the Statute of Limitations

 The Court begins its analysis by noting that Petitioner’s claim appears to be 

barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). His 

claim also appears to be unexhausted or procedurally defaulted2

 because both the 

 

2

 The doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies requires state prisoners to present all 

of their claims to the state courts before raising their claims in a federal habeas 

corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The doctrine of procedural default 

prohibits a federal court from reviewing the merits of a state prisoner’s claims if a 

2:15-cv-11528-MFL-EAS Doc # 9 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 79
6

Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court rejected Petitioner’s 

2015 appeals for failure to pay the courts’ filing fees. Nevertheless, the exhaustion 

rule is not a jurisdictional requirement, see Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 349 

(1989), and “a procedural default . . . is not a jurisdictional matter.” Trest v. Cain, 

522 U.S. 87, 89 (1997). The statute-of-limitations defense also is not 

jurisdictional, Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 205 (2006), and Petitioner’s 

claim does not warrant federal habeas relief. The Court therefore proceeds directly 

to the merits of Petitioner’s claim. 

B. Petitioner’s State-Law Claim

 Petitioner contends that the criminal proceedings against him in the Oakland 

County Circuit Court were void because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction. 

Although Petitioner alleges that the state court’s lack of jurisdiction violated his 

constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law, the actual basis 

for his claim is that the state court violated a Michigan statute, which provides: 

All informations shall be filed in the court having 

jurisdiction of the offense specified in the information 

after the proper return is filed by the examining 

magistrate and by the prosecuting attorney of the county 

as informant. The information shall be subscribed by the 

prosecuting attorney or in his or her name by an assistant 

prosecuting attorney. 

 

state court declined to hear the claims because the prisoner failed to abide by a 

state procedural rule. Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309, 1316 (2012). 

2:15-cv-11528-MFL-EAS Doc # 9 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 80
7

Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.40 (emphasis added); see also People v. Goecke, 579 

N.W.2d 868, 871 (1998) (stating that “[j]urisdiction vests in the circuit court when 

a return is filed by the magistrate”); People v. Flowers, 477 N.W.2d 473, 476 

(1991) (stating that “[a] circuit court does not acquire jurisdiction until a return is 

filed by the district court . . . .”). Petitioner maintains that the Oakland County 

Circuit Court proceeded against him before the magistrate’s return was filed and, 

therefore, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction. 

 Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief based upon the alleged 

violation of the Michigan jurisdictional statute because, “[i]n conducting habeas 

review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 

62, 68 (1991) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241; Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975) 

(per curiam)). And a “[d]etermination of whether a state court is vested with 

jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, not the federal 

judiciary.” Wills v. Egeler, 532 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir. 1976). At most, 

Petitioner’s claim suggests a violation of his rights under Michigan law; it does not 

implicate any rights protected under federal law. See O’Neal v. Unknown Oakland 

Circuit Judge, 2006 WL 644851, at *3 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 13, 2006) (holding that 

claim that a Michigan circuit court proceeded against a criminal defendant before 

2:15-cv-11528-MFL-EAS Doc # 9 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 81
8

filing of “return” is a matter of state law and does not present a federal 

constitutional question). Thus, Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable on federal 

habeas review. See Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984) (holding federal courts 

“may not issue the writ [of habeas corpus] on the basis of a perceived error of state 

law”). The Court therefore concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to federal 

habeas relief and it will dismiss the Petition. 

C. Certificate of Appealability and Appellate Filing Fee

 “[A] prisoner seeking postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 has no 

automatic right to appeal a district court’s denial or dismissal of the petition. 

Instead, [the] petitioner must first seek and obtain a [certificate of appealability.]” 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). “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). “A petitioner satisfies this standard 

by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 

resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 

presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 

537 at 327 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Reasonable 

jurists would not disagree with the Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s claim, nor 

conclude that the issue presented is adequate to proceed further. 

2:15-cv-11528-MFL-EAS Doc # 9 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 82
9

CONCLUSION 

 For all of the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 The Petition (ECF #1) is DISMISSED;

 A certificate of appealability is DENIED; and 

 Petitioner may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because an appeal 

from this decision could not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(3). 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 21, 2016 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on March 21, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cv-11528-MFL-EAS Doc # 9 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 83