1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEFFREY WEAVER,

Petitioner, 

v.

NICK LUDWICK,

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 2:09-CV-10018

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

I.

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Jeffrey Weaver

(Petitioner) is a state prisoner who has filed the instant petition challenging his

conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct. For the reasons which follow, the

petition will be summarily dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which habeas

relief may be granted.

 II.

Petitioner pleaded guilty in Bay County Circuit Court to first-degree criminal

sexual conduct. On September 8, 1997, he was sentenced to 8 to 30 years’

imprisonment. 

Petitioner states that he did not file a direct appeal of his conviction. Instead, in

2002, he filed a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court challenging his

conviction on the basis of a jurisdictional defect. Sometime in January 2003, the trial

2:09-cv-10018-AC-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 01/16/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 22
2

court denied the motion. He does not appear to have appealed that decision.

On November 13, 2008, Petitioner filed another motion for relief from judgment in

the trial court, arguing that the statute pursuant to which he was convicted violates the

Michigan Constitution. According to Petitioner, that motion was denied on November

25, 2008. Petitioner did not attempt to appeal that decision.

Petitioner has now filed the instant petition, raising a single claim for relief:

Statute that I was convicted with does not have an enactment clause as

required by the Michigan Constitution.

III.

A.

Upon the filing of a habeas petition, a district court must promptly examine the

petition to determine “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits

annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4, Rules Governing

Section 2254 cases. If the district court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to

relief, the district court shall summarily dismiss the petition. McFarland v. Scott, 512

U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas

petition that appears legally insufficient on its face”). 

B.

As an initial matter, it appears that Petitioner’s claim has not been properly

exhausted in state court. A petitioner must exhaust his state court remedies prior to

seeking federal habeas relief by fairly presenting the substance of each federal

constitutional claim in state court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b)(1)(A) & 2254(c)). The

exhaustion requirement is satisfied if a prisoner invokes one complete round of the

2:09-cv-10018-AC-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 01/16/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 23
3

state’s established appellate review process, including a petition for discretionary review

to a state supreme court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). A Michigan

prisoner must present each ground to both Michigan appellate courts before seeking

federal habeas corpus relief. See Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 1990). 

Petitioner did not do so. However, because Petitioner has already has filed two motions

for relief from judgment in state court, he likely has no avenue for exhaustion remaining

in state court, the Court will address Petitioner’s claim in the interests of efficiency and

justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).

As to the merits of his claim, Petitioner argues that the statute under which he

was convicted is invalid because it does not have an enactment clause as required by

the Michigan Constitution. This fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. In

order to demonstrate that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief, Petitioner must show

that he “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of

state law.” Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502

U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Petitioner’s claim is clearly based on an perceived violation of

state law, i.e. the Michigan Constitution. As such, it does not state a viable federal

habeas claim. 

2:09-cv-10018-AC-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 01/16/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 24
4

IV.

For the reasons stated above, it plainly appears from the petition that Petitioner is

not entitled to habeas relief. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED.

 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 16, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Jeffrey Weaver, 

258996, Mid-Michigan Correctional Facility, 8201 N. Croswell Road, St. Louis, MI 48880 

and the attorneys of record on this date, January 16, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary

mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-10018-AC-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 01/16/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 25