UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER W. HOPKINS,

Petitioner, 

v.

GREG MCQUIGGIN,

Respondent. 

/

Case Number: 2:09-CV-11198

HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE

TOLLING AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Christopher W. Hopkins, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Alger

Correctional Facility in Munising, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his conviction for second-degree murder. Also

before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Equitable Tolling. For the reasons set forth below, the

Court denies the motion and dismisses the petition as untimely.

I.

Petitioner pleaded guilty in Wayne County Circuit Court to second-degree murder. In

consideration of his guilty plea, the prosecutor dismissed charges of first-degree felony murder,

unarmed robbery, and assault with intent to rob while armed. On February 3, 2004, Petitioner was

sentenced to twenty-five to fifty years’ imprisonment. Petitioner did not request appointment of

appellate counsel until April 8, 2005. Because the time for filing a delayed application for leave to

appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals had already expired, counsel filed a motion for relief from

judgment in the trial court. That motion was denied on February 22, 2007. People v. Hopkins, No.

2:09-cv-11198-LPZ-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 07/20/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 68
2

03-10594-01 (Wayne County Circuit Court Feb. 22, 2007). Petitioner filed an application for leave

to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The court of appeals denied leave to appeal. People

v. Hopkins, No. 276899 (Mich. Ct. App. July 26, 2007). Petitioner then filed an application for leave

to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. The Michigan Supreme Court also denied leave to

appeal. People v. Hopkins, No. 134856 (Mich. Dec. 28, 2007). 

Petitioner filed the pending petition on March 31, 2009.

II.

Petitioner has filed a Motion for Equitable Tolling in which he concedes that, absent

equitable tolling of the limitations period, the petition is untimely. Petitioner argues that the

circumstances of his case warrant equitable tolling. 

A prisoner must file a federal habeas corpus petition within one year of the “date on which

the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The one-year limitations period does not begin

to run until the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court

has expired. Isham v. Randle, 226 F.3d 69, 694–95 (6th Cir. 2000). In addition, the time during

which a prisoner seeks state-court collateral review of a conviction does not count toward the

limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). However, a properly filed application for state postconviction relief, while tolling the statute of limitations, does not serve to restart the limitations

period. Vroman v. Brigano, 346 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2003). 

In the pending case, Petitioner’s judgment of sentence was entered on February 3, 2004.

Petitioner did not file a direct appeal of his conviction. His conviction, therefore, became final on

February 3, 2005, when the one-year limitations period for filing a delayed application for leave to

2:09-cv-11198-LPZ-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 07/20/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 69
3

appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals expired. See Jagodka v. Lafler, 148 Fed. Appx. 345, 346

(6th Cir. 2005); Mich. Ct. R. 7.205(F). The one-year limitations period applicable to habeas corpus

petitions commenced on February 4, 2005, and continued to run, uninterrupted, until February 4,

2006. 

Petitioner sought state collateral review of his conviction by filing a motion for relief from

judgment in the trial court. However, Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment was not filed

until November 1, 2006, approximately eight months after the limitations period already had

expired. Accordingly, the petition is untimely. 

Petitioner argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period because he

was unaware he could file a direct appeal in state court or that he could request that an attorney be

appointed to assist him with an appeal and because he “did not know that the court, prosecutor and

trial counsel could violate the law.” Petitioner’s Motion at p. 4.

To be entitled to equitable tolling, a petitioner must show “‘(1) that he has been pursuing his

rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented

timely filing.” Lawrence v. Florida, 594 U.S. 327, 336 (2007) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544

U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). The Sixth Circuit has identified the following five factors to be considered

in determining whether a habeas corpus petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling: (1) the petitioner’s

lack of notice of the filing requirement; (2) the petitioner’s lack of constructive knowledge of the

filing requirement; (3) diligence in pursuing one’s rights; (4) absence of prejudice to the respondent;

and (5) the petitioner’s reasonableness in remaining ignorant of the legal requirement for filing his

claim. Allen v. Yukins, 366 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d

1001, 1008 (6th Cir. 2001)). “These factors are not necessarily comprehensive and they are not all

2:09-cv-11198-LPZ-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 07/20/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 70
4

relevant in all cases. Ultimately, the decision whether to equitably toll a period of limitations must

be decided on a case-by-case basis.” Miller v. Collins, 305 F.3d 491, 495 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal

citation omitted). A petitioner, however, has the burden of demonstrating that he is entitled to

equitable tolling. See Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2002).

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides prisoners with

constructive knowledge of the limitations period applicable to habeas petitions. Allen v. Bell, 250

Fed. Appx. 713, 715–16 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Yukins, 366 F.3d at 402). The Court of Appeals also

has rejected the claim that a prisoner-petitioner’s lack of actual knowledge of the limitations period

based upon “‘ignorance of the law is not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling.’” Id. (quoting Rose

v. Dole, 945 F.2d 1331, 1335 (6th Cir. 1991)); see also Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th

Cir. 2002) (holding that an inmate’s lack of legal training or poor education do not justify equitable

tolling of the limitations period). The fact that a petitioner was proceeding without a lawyer also

does not warrant equitable tolling. Moore v. Harry, No. 08-CV-12098, 2008 WL 5159078, at *3

(E.D. Mich. Dec. 09, 2008) (citing Holloway v. Jones, 166 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1189 (E.D. Mich.

2001)). Moreover, even if the limitations period is tolled between the time Petitioner’s conviction

became final and when he filed his motion for relief from judgment, the petition is still untimely

because collateral review concluded on December 28, 2007, and the petition was not filed until

March 31, 2009. Additionally, Petitioner’s unsupported allegation that the prosecutor, the court, and

his attorney violated the law is insufficient to support a claim for equitable tolling.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the habeas corpus petition was filed

outside the one-year limitations period prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A). Further, the Court

2:09-cv-11198-LPZ-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 07/20/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 71
5

concludes that Petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the

limitations period.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Equitable Tolling is DENIED

and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 20, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of

record by electronic or U.S. mail on July 20, 2009.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-11198-LPZ-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 07/20/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 72