1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CHRISTOPHER BLACKWELL, 

Defendant. 

4:15-CR-20152-TGB 

ORDER CONSTRUING 

LETTER (ECF NO. 223) AS 

HABEAS PETITION AND 

REQUIRING 

SUPPLEMENTATION 

Defendant Christopher Blackwell has filed two letters inquiring 

about the requirements for appointment of counsel and the time 

limitations for him to file a § 2255 motion, or a habeas petition. ECF Nos. 

223, 224. 

In habeas proceedings, the Court has the discretion to decide 

whether to appoint counsel: it is “required only where the interests of 

justice or due process so require.” Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 638 

(6th Cir. 1986). In order to assess whether counsel should be appointed, 

the Court must have an idea of what errors occurred that the Defendant 

believes justify habeas relief. Although there is no general right to 

counsel in habeas cases, if a petitioner shows that he cannot obtain and 

pay for his own attorney, would have difficulty obtaining justice without

an attorney, and would also have a reasonable chance of winning with an 

attorney, the Court will consider appointing counsel. Thirkield v. Pitcher, 

Case 4:15-cr-20152-TGB-MJH ECF No. 231, PageID.1554 Filed 02/10/21 Page 1 of 4
2 

199 F. Supp. 2d 637, 653 (E.D. Mich. 2002). Consequently, if Mr. 

Blackwell believes he has a possible habeas challenge to pursue, and that 

he can only succeed with the assistance of counsel, he must provide the 

Court with an explanation of what kind of constitutional error occurred 

in his conviction or sentence that he believes must be remedied. 

As to the question of the time limit for habeas petitions, these can 

be filed up to one year after judgment becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). 

This one-year period runs from whichever of the following is the latest: 

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes 

final; 

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion 

created by governmental action in violation of the 

Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if 

the movant was prevented from making a motion by 

such governmental action; 

(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially 

recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been 

newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made 

retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or 

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or 

claims presented could have been discovered through 

the exercise of due diligence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Based on the record, (2)-(4) are not applicable. 

Regarding (1), the date on which a judgment becomes final varies from 

case to case and takes into account any relevant appeals. Mr. Blackwell 

appealed the judgment in this case to the Sixth Circuit, which dismissed 

his appeal on April 11, 2018. ECF No. 218. After that, he had up to ninety 

days to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari, which he did not. Sup. 

Case 4:15-cr-20152-TGB-MJH ECF No. 231, PageID.1555 Filed 02/10/21 Page 2 of 4
3 

Ct. R. 13. His one-year period began at the end of that ninety days. Clay 

v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 532 (2003). The date on which the 

judgment of conviction in this case became final was therefore July 11, 

2018, and the time to file a § 2255 petition ended on July 11, 2019. 

Here, Mr. Blackwell filed letters with the Court inquiring about his 

habeas rights on March 4 and April 17, 2019. ECF Nos. 223, 224. Pro se 

filings must be liberally construed, and occasionally this requires “active 

interpretation” on the part of the Court to ensure that allegations stating 

federal relief are resolved on the merits. Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 

85 (6th Cir. 1985); see also Spotts v. United States, 429 F.3d 248, 250 (6th 

Cir. 2005). Given the fact that Mr. Blackwell was inquiring about the 

time-limit applicable to the filing of habeas petitions in these letters, the 

Court will construe his letter of March 4, 2019 as a habeas petition that 

was timely filed. However, that petition did not contain any description 

of the reasons supporting the need for habeas relief, as described above. 

The Court will therefore permit Mr. Blackwell to supplement his 

petition with a statement describing the alleged errors that he believes 

supports his petition for habeas relief, provided that he does so 

within 90 days of the date of this Order, or by May 10, 2021. Mr. 

Blackwell may include within his petition a request to have counsel 

appointed, and the Court will consider that request together with the 

grounds set out in the petition. If no supplement is filed within 90 days, 

the petition will be dismissed. 

Case 4:15-cr-20152-TGB-MJH ECF No. 231, PageID.1556 Filed 02/10/21 Page 3 of 4
4 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

(1) Petitioner Blackwell shall submit a statement describing the 

grounds he believes supports his request for habeas relief 

within 90 days of the date of this Order, or, by no later 

than May 10, 2021; 

(2) Petitioner Blackwell may also include a request for the 

appointment of counsel explaining why he believes his 

petition requires the assistance of counsel; 

(3) If no supplement is filed within 90 days, this Petition will be 

dismissed. 

The Clerk is also directed to appropriately indicate on the docket 

that ECF No. 223 is a motion. 

SO ORDERED, this 10th day of February, 2021. 

BY THE COURT:

s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:15-cr-20152-TGB-MJH ECF No. 231, PageID.1557 Filed 02/10/21 Page 4 of 4