1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CLIFFORD COLEMAN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-11519

v. HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

CARMEN PALMER,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

I. Introduction

This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Clifford

Coleman, a state prisoner confined at the E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility in Ionia,

Michigan, asserts that he is being held in violation of his constitutional rights. Coleman was

convicted of armed robbery and assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than

murder following a bench trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court, and was sentenced as

a habitual offender to concurrent terms of 30 to 60 years of imprisonment on September

5, 1991 (Case No. 91-04153). He was also convicted of unarmed robbery following a jury

trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court and sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 to 60

years’ imprisonment on September 18, 1991 (Case No. 91-3737). In his petition, Coleman

challenges his habitual offender sentencing enhancement for those convictions. For the

reasons stated, the Court concludes that Coleman has not exhausted his state court

2:09-cv-11519-SJM-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 07/28/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 24
2

remedies and dismisses without prejudice the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

II. Analysis

A prisoner filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 must

first exhaust all state remedies. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)

(“state prisoners must give the state courts one full fair opportunity to resolve any

constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate

review process”); Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994). In other words, a

Michigan prisoner must first present to the state courts each issue he seeks to raise in a

federal habeas proceeding. Each issue must be presented to both the Michigan Court of

Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See

Welch v. Burke, 49 F. Supp. 2d 992, 998 (E.D. Mich. 1999); see also Hafley v. Sowders,

902 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 1990). The burden is on the petitioner to prove exhaustion.

Rust, 17 F.3d at 160.

Coleman has not met his burden of demonstrating exhaustion of state court

remedies. He admits that he has “never attacked” his sentence for the reasons set forth

in his current petition. He has thus failed to exhaust his habeas claims in the Michigan

courts before proceeding in this Court on federal habeas review.

Coleman has available remedies in the Michigan courts which must be exhausted

before proceeding in federal court. For example, he may file a motion for relief from

judgment pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 6.500 with the state trial court and then pursue

his unexhausted issues in the state appellate courts as necessary. Federal law provides

that a habeas petitioner is only entitled to relief if he can show that the state court

adjudication of his claims resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an

2:09-cv-11519-SJM-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 07/28/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 25
1

 The Court does note, however, that to the extent the petition challenges

Coleman’s 1991 sentences, it is successive to his 1997 habeas cases concerning those

convictions, which were dismissed as untimely. See Coleman v. Abramajtys, Nos. 97-

CV-76292, 97-CV-74733 (E.D. Mich. April 22, 1998) (Duggan, J. adopting magistrate

judge’s report). Coleman must obtain authorization from the United States Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit before proceeding in this Court on a second habeas

petition challenging his 1991 convictions or sentences. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A);

Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641 (1998); In re Wilson, 142 F.3d 939, 940

(6th Cir. 1998).

3

unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme

Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). If this Court were to review

Coleman’s unexhausted issues, such an action would deny the state courts the deference

to which they are entitled. The state courts must first be given a fair opportunity to rule

upon Coleman’s claims before he litigates those claims in this Court. Otherwise, the Court

is unable to apply the standard found at 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Coleman has not exhausted his

state court remedies as to the claims contained in his petition. Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court

makes no determination as to the merits of the petition.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

Stephen J. Murphy, III

United States District Judge

Dated: July 28, 2009

2:09-cv-11519-SJM-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 07/28/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 26
4

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on July 28, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Alissa Greer 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11519-SJM-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 07/28/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 27