UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

T. J. SUTTON,

Petitioner,

v.

LLOYD RAPELJE,

Respondent. 

/

Case Number: 2:09-CV-10616

HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Michigan state prisoner T.J. Sutton has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his convictions for armed robbery, felon in

possession of a firearm, and felony firearm. Now before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for

Summary Judgment. 

A motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 presumes the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact for trial. The Court must view the evidence and draw all

reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and determine “whether the evidence

presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided

that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

251-52 (1986). The “[s]ummary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored

procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are

designed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986) (internal quotes omitted). 
2

A fact is “material” if its resolution affects the outcome of the lawsuit. Lenning v.

Commercial Union Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 574, 581 (6th Cir. 2001). “Materiality” is determined by

the substantive law claim. Boyd v. Baeppler, 215 F.3d 594, 599 (6th Cir. 2000). An issue is

“genuine” if a “reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Henson v. Nat’l

Aeronautics & Space Admin., 14 F.3d 1143, 1148 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S.

at 248). Irrelevant or unnecessary factual disputes do not create genuine issues of material fact. 

St. Francis Health Care Centre v. Shalala, 205 F.3d 937, 943 (6th Cir. 2000). When the “record

taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party,” there is

no genuine issue of material fact. Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 234 F.3d 945, 951 (6th Cir. 2000). 

Thus a factual dispute which “is merely colorable or is not significantly probative” will not

defeat a motion for summary judgment which is properly supported. Kraft v. United States, 991

F.2d 292, 296 (6th Cir. 1993); see also Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agric.

Implement Workers of Am. v. BVR Liquidating, Inc., 190 F.3d 768, 772 (6th Cir. 1999).

The party bringing the summary judgment motion has the initial burden of informing the

district court of the basis for its motion and identifying portions of the record which demonstrate

the absence of a genuine dispute over material facts. Mt. Lebanon Personal Care Home, Inc. v.

Hoover Univ., Inc., 276 F.3d 845, 848 (6th Cir. 2002). The party opposing the motion then may

not “rely on the hope that the trier of fact will disbelieve the movant’s denial of a disputed fact”

but must make an affirmative showing with proper evidence in order to defeat the motion. Street

v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir. 1989). A party opposing a motion for

summary judgment must designate specific facts in affidavits, depositions, or other factual

material showing “evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” 
3

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. If the non-moving party, after sufficient opportunity for discovery, is

unable to meet his or her burden of proof, summary judgment is clearly proper. Celotex Corp.,

477 U.S. at 322-23. 

In this case, Petitioner has failed to satisfy the burden of identifying portions of the

record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute over material facts. Mt. Lebanon

Personal Care Home, Inc. v. Hoover Univ., Inc., 276 F.3d 845, 848 (6th Cir. 2002). 

Respondent’s answer challenges the claims raised in the petition and shows sufficient

disagreement based upon case law and sound legal reasoning that summary judgment is not

appropriate. Thus, the Court shall deny this motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion for Summary Judgment” [dkt.

# 8] is DENIED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: August 19, 2010

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

August 19, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager