UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHARLES LEWIS, 

 Petitioner, 

 CASE NO. 2:15-cv-10766 

v. HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS 

BONITA HOFFNER, 

 Respondent. 

_________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER 

GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 12), 

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF NO. 8), 

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 9), 

CLOSING THIS CASE, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

I. Introduction

 This matter is pending before the Court on petitioner Charles Lewis’ habeas 

corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and respondent Bonita Hoffner’s motion to 

dismiss the petition. Also pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to show 

cause and his second motion for relief from judgment. Petitioner is challenging his 1977 

conviction and life sentence for first-degree murder. He alleges in his habeas petition 

that his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a murder that 

was committed when he was seventeen years old is cruel and unusual punishment 

under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioner further 

alleges in a letter to the Court filed on August 10, 2015, and in two motions filed on 

February 11, 2016, that the state court dismissed his murder case in the year 2000 and 

that he is entitled to immediate release from custody. Respondent argues in her motion 

2:15-cv-10766-NGE-MKM Doc # 15 Filed 08/02/16 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 1019
2

to dismiss the habeas petition that Petitioner did not exhaust state remedies for his 

sentencing claim and that Petitioner’s challenge to his conviction is time-barred, 

unauthorized, and incredible. 

 The Michigan Supreme Court recently vacated Petitioner’s sentence and 

remanded his case to the state trial court for re-sentencing. Thus, Petitioner’s 

sentencing claim is moot. His challenge to the underlying murder conviction lacks merit. 

Accordingly, the habeas petition will be dismissed, and Petitioner’s motions will be 

denied. 

II. Background

 In 1977, a jury in the former Detroit Recorder’s Court found Petitioner guilty of 

first-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316. The conviction arose from the fatal 

shooting of an off-duty police officer in Detroit. On July 27, 1977, the trial court 

sentenced Petitioner to mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. 

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction, and the Michigan 

Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. 

 Petitioner filed multiple post-conviction motions and appeals without success, 

and in 1987, he challenged his murder conviction in a federal habeas corpus petition, 

which the district court denied. On appeal from the district court’s decision, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for 

(1) further review of Petitioner’s claim that trial counsel failed to investigate potential 

alibi witnesses and (2) a determination of whether Petitioner requested a transcript of 

his state evidentiary hearing and, if so, whether one was provided. The Sixth Circuit 

2:15-cv-10766-NGE-MKM Doc # 15 Filed 08/02/16 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 1020
3

affirmed the district court’s order in all other respects. See Lewis v. Jabe, No. 88-1522, 

1989 WL 145895, at *7-*8 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 1989). On remand, former United States 

District Judge Richard F. Suhrheinrich ordered transcripts from the state court, held an 

evidentiary hearing, and then denied habeas corpus relief on Petitioner’s claim 

regarding trial counsel. See Lewis v. Jabe, No. 87-72050 (E.D. Mich. May 3, 1990, May 

30, 1990, and June 28, 1990). Petitioner subsequently filed several post-judgment 

motions in the 1987 habeas case, but all the motions were denied. 

 At some point, Petitioner returned to state court and filed an application for 

satisfaction of judgment. In support of his application, Petitioner attached an order that 

indicated his first-degree murder conviction and life sentence were dismissed on April 3, 

2000 by then-Wayne County Circuit Judge Gershwin A. Drain. Judge Drain denied the 

application for satisfaction of judgment after determining that his signature on the order 

submitted by Petitioner was a forgery and that a corresponding entry on the court’s 

register of actions also was fraudulent. See Order Denying Defendant’s Application for 

Satisfaction of Judgment and Order to Show Cause (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct. Jan. 16, 2012). 

The Michigan Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s delayed application for leave to 

appeal Judge Drain’s decision “for lack of merit.” See People v. Lewis, No. 308585 

(Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2012). Petitioner did not appeal that decision to the Michigan 

Supreme Court. 

 Meanwhile, on June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued its 

decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), holding “that mandatory life 

without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the 

2:15-cv-10766-NGE-MKM Doc # 15 Filed 08/02/16 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 1021
4

Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ ” Id. at 2460. 

Petitioner subsequently challenged his life sentence in a state-court motion for relief 

from judgment. The state trial court granted Petitioner’s motion and ordered resentencing in accordance with Miller. The Michigan Court of Appeals, however, 

reversed the trial court’s decision, see People v. Lewis, No. 315520 (Mich. Ct. App. 

Aug. 29, 2013), and on December 30, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave 

to appeal because it was not persuaded to review the issue. See People v. Lewis, 857 

N.W.2d 24 (Mich. 2014). 

 Petitioner appealed the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to the United States 

Supreme Court, and while his petition for a writ of certiorari was pending there, he 

commenced this action through counsel. His sole habeas claim is that his life sentence 

without the possibility of parole for a crime that occurred when he was a juvenile is cruel 

and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) 

 Respondent moved to transfer Petitioner’s habeas petition to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as a second or successive petition under 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b). (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner’s attorney did not answer the State’s motion 

and, instead, moved to withdraw as counsel for Petitioner on the basis of a breakdown 

in the relationship. (ECF No. 5.) In an opinion and order dated October 19, 2015, the 

Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and denied Respondent’s motion to transfer 

the habeas petition to the Sixth Circuit as a second or successive petition. The Court 

then stayed this case in anticipation of a ruling from the Supreme Court on the 

retroactivity of Miller. (ECF No. 6.) 

2:15-cv-10766-NGE-MKM Doc # 15 Filed 08/02/16 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 1022
5

 On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court held that Miller is retroactive to 

offenders who committed their crimes as juveniles and whose convictions and 

sentences were final when Miller was decided. See Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. 

Ct. 718, 734 (2016). Petitioner then filed three motions in this case. In a purported 

motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 7), Petitioner asked the Court to lift its stay. In 

a motion to show cause (ECF No. 8), Petitioner asked the Court to expand the record 

and to release him from custody on the basis that Judge Drain dismissed his conviction 

on April 3, 2000. Finally, in a second motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 9), 

Petitioner reiterated that he was incarcerated without a conviction or sentence because 

the state trial court dismissed his conviction on April 3, 2000. 

 On March 7, 2016, while Petitioner’s three motions remained pending in this 

Court, the Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s application for a writ of certiorari and 

vacated the Michigan Supreme Court’s last judgment in his case. The Supreme Court 

then remanded Petitioner’s case to the Michigan Supreme Court for further 

consideration in light of Montgomery. See Lewis v. Michigan, 136 S. Ct. 1357 (2016). 

 On April 26, 2016, this Court granted Petitioner’s request to lift the stay and 

ordered Respondent to address Petitioner’s other motions and his habeas claim that his 

mandatory life sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. (ECF No. 11.) On May 4, 

2016, Respondent moved to dismiss the habeas petition on the ground that Petitioner 

had not fully exhausted his state remedies because his case was still pending in the 

Michigan Supreme Court. On May 24, 2016, however, the Michigan Supreme Court 

vacated Petitioner’s sentence for first-degree murder and remanded his case to the 

2:15-cv-10766-NGE-MKM Doc # 15 Filed 08/02/16 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 1023
6

Wayne County Circuit Court for re-sentencing in light of Miller and Montgomery. The 

matter currently is pending in Wayne County Circuit Court, and a hearing is scheduled 

for August 5, 2016. See www.3rdcc.org, case number 76-005890-01-FC. 

III. Discussion

 The only relief that Petitioner seeks in his habeas corpus petition is an order 

vacating his life sentence and directing the state trial court to re-sentence him. See Pet. 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus, at 5. On May 24, 2016, the Michigan Supreme Court did 

just that: the state supreme court vacated Petitioner’s life sentence for first-degree 

murder and remanded Petitioner’s case to the trial court for re-sentencing on the murder 

conviction. See People v. Lewis, 878 N.W.2d 479. Thus, Petitioner’s sentencing claim 

is moot, as the state court has granted the relief he seeks here. Friedman’s, Inc. v. 

Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Simpson v. Camper, 974 F.2d 1030, 

1031 (8th Cir. 1992), and New York v. Seneci, 817 F.2d 1015, 1017 (2d Cir. 1987)); 

Cline v. Procunier, 328 F. Supp. 205, 207 (C.D. Ca. 1971); Stratmoen v. Ward, 248 F. 

App’x 17, 21 (10th Cir. 2007). 

 Petitioner’s challenge to his murder conviction is not moot because the Michigan 

Supreme Court left the murder conviction intact when it vacated Petitioner’s life 

sentence for the murder. Nevertheless, the record does not support Petitioner’s 

contention that he is entitled to immediate release from custody on the basis of a statecourt order dismissing his murder case. When Petitioner raised this issue in state court, 

then-Wayne County Circuit Judge Gershwin A. Drain rejected the claim in a written 

decision dated January 16, 2012. Judge Drain stated that he had no recollection of 

2:15-cv-10766-NGE-MKM Doc # 15 Filed 08/02/16 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 1024
7

signing the order of dismissal and that he did not recall handling Petitioner’s motion for 

relief from judgment. Judge Drain also pointed out that his name does not appear in 

Petitioner’s file and that he did not succeed the judge who presided over Petitioner’s 

trial. Judge Drain stated that, for Petitioner to wait twelve years to be released from 

custody pursuant to an order supposedly signed in 2000 “doesn’t add up.” Judge Drain 

concluded that the signed order which Petitioner submitted was a forgery and that the 

register of actions which reflected the order also was fraudulent. The Michigan Court of 

Appeals denied Petitioner’s appeal from Judge Drain’s decision “for lack of merit.” 

 The state-court orders rejecting Petitioner’s challenge to his murder conviction 

were based on reasonable “determination[s] of the facts in light of the evidence 

presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Petitioner therefore 

has no right to relief on the basis of his challenge to the murder conviction. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

 For the reasons given above, Petitioner’s sentencing claim is moot, and the 

state-court orders on his claim about the underlying murder conviction were based on 

reasonable determinations of the facts. Accordingly, it is ordered that: 

 • Respondent’s motion to dismiss the habeas petition (ECF No. 12) is granted, 

and the habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is dismissed; 

 • Petitioner’s motion to show cause why the record should not be expanded and 

why he should not be released from custody (ECF No. 8) is denied; 

 • Petitioner’s second motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 9) is denied; 

2:15-cv-10766-NGE-MKM Doc # 15 Filed 08/02/16 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 1025
8

 • this case is closed, and a certificate of appealability is denied because 

reasonable jurists would not disagree with the Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s claims, 

nor conclude that the issues presented to the Court deserve encouragement to proceed 

further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 

 s/ Nancy G. Edmunds 

Dated: August 2, 2016 NANCY G. EDMUNDS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 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 8/2/16 August 2, 2016. 

s/Carol J Bethel 

 CAROL J BETHEL 

 Case Manager

 

 

2:15-cv-10766-NGE-MKM Doc # 15 Filed 08/02/16 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 1026