UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHAUN DALE COX,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 08-15125

HONORABLE MARIANNE O. BATTANI

HUGH WOLFENBARGER,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND

DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

OR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Petitioner Shaun Dale Cox has filed a pro se application for the writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition challenges Petitioner’s Wayne County

conviction for fleeing and eluding a police officer. Petitioner states that he was sentenced on

May 25, 2004, to imprisonment for one and a half to ten years, and he concedes that he did not

appeal his conviction, nor pursue state collateral remedies under subchapter 6.500 of the

Michigan Court Rules. Although state prisoners generally are required to exhaust state remedies

for their claims, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), Petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and possibly

barred from review by the one-year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Consequently, the Court will proceed to address the substantive merits of his claim.

Petitioner alleges that the prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, and judges in his state

criminal case were not registered to practice law or to do business in the State of Michigan and,

therefore, his conviction is void. Petitioner further alleges that state attorneys and judges are

agents for a foreign country and are required by 22 U.S.C. § 611, et seq., to register with the

2:08-cv-15125-MOB-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 01/13/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 24
2

United States Attorney General. He asserts that none of the attorneys and judges involved in his

case (Richard P. Hathaway, Edward Ewell, Leonard Townsend, and Kym L. Worthy) are

properly registered with the United States Attorney General. 

Petitioner’s claim lacks merit because his 

account of legal licensure in Michigan is patently false. “License to practice law,

the continuation of such license, regulation of the practice and the procedure for

disbarment and discipline are all matters that are within the province of an

individual state.” Saier v. State Bar of Michigan, 293 F.2d 756, 759 (6th Cir.

1961). The Michigan Revised Judicature Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.901-

949, governs “the creation of the office of attorney, the regulation and control of

the practice of law, [and] the procedure of disbarment” in Michigan. Id.

Trump v. United States v. United States Attorney General, No. 1:08-CV-23, 2008 WL 696437, at

*1 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2008) (unpublished). The alleged violations of state law are not a basis

for habeas corpus relief. Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990). “In 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). 

Petitioner’s reliance on federal statutes also is misplaced, because the attorneys and

judges involved in his criminal case are licensed to practice law in Michigan, and none of them

is a “foreign principal” or an “agent of a foreign principal” as defined in 22 U.S.C. § 611. 

Furthermore, the State of Michigan is not a foreign principal or an agent of a foreign principal 

within the meaning of § 611 (b) and (c). Trump, 2008 WL 696437, at *1 n.2. 

Petitioner has failed to show that he is in custody “in violation of the Constitution or laws

or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Accordingly, the petition for writ of

habeas corpus is summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court declines to issue a certificate of

2:08-cv-15125-MOB-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 01/13/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 25
3

appealability or leave to proceed in forma pauperis because reasonable jurists would not

disagree with the Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s claims, and the issues do not warrant

encouragement to proceed further. Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 674 (2004). 

s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: 1/13/09

2:08-cv-15125-MOB-PJK Doc # 3 Filed 01/13/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 26