1

 Although Petitioner filed his application for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241, § 2254 is not only the “appropriate vehicle” for Petitioner’s parole denial

claims, it is, practically speaking, the sole vehicle. Crouch v. Norris, 251 F. 3d 720, 723

(8th Cir. 2001). This is because petitioner is a “person in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a State court”, and can only obtain habeas relief under § 2254, regardless

of how his pleadings are styled. Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)).

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL STOUTMILES,

Petitioner, Civil No. 2:09-CV-11884

HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THOMAS BELL,

Respondent,

_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Michael Stoutmiles, (“Petitioner”), presently confined at Gus Harrison

Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 In his pro se application, petitioner challenges the

Michigan Parole Board’s refusal to consider granting him parole for his convictions for

third-degree criminal sexual conduct. For the reasons stated below, the petition for writ

of habeas corpus is DENIED. 

2:09-cv-11884-AJT-VMM Doc # 12 Filed 09/30/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 117
Stoutmiles v. Bell, U.S.D.C. 09-CV-11884

2

I. Background

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of one count of third-degree criminal sexual

conduct in the Berrien County Circuit Court and was sentenced on November 1, 1999 to

six to fifteen years in prison. Petitioner pleaded no contest in a second case to another

count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in the Berrien County Circuit Court and

was sentenced on November 22, 1999 to three years, two months to fifteen years in

prison. 

Petitioner claims that he has been denied release on parole by the Michigan

Parole Board four times, the most recently, in March of 2009. 

Petitioner now seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he

was wrongly denied parole release by the Michigan Parole Board.

II. Standard of Review

28 U.S.C. §2254(d) imposes the following standard of review for habeas cases: 

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect

to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings

unless the adjudication of the claim–

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

2:09-cv-11884-AJT-VMM Doc # 12 Filed 09/30/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 118
Stoutmiles v. Bell, U.S.D.C. 09-CV-11884

3

A decision of a state court is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if the

state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a

question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the Supreme Court

has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-

06 (2000). An "unreasonable application" occurs when “a state court decision

unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the facts of a prisoner’s case.”

Id. at 409. A federal habeas court may not “issue the writ simply because that court

concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied

clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly." Id. at 410-11.

III. Discussion

Petitioner claims that the Michigan Parole Board has violated his due process

rights by refusing to release him on parole. 

Petitioner acknowledges that he has yet to present his claim to the Michigan

courts. However, in light of the fact that Michigan law does not permit a prisoner to

appeal an adverse decision by the Michigan Parole Board, petitioner’s failure to

exhaust his parole denial claim with the state courts is excusable. See Jackson v.

Jamrog, 411 F. 3d 615, 618 (6th Cir. 2005). Moreover, an unexhausted claim may be

addressed if the claim is without merit, and addressing the claim would serve the

interest of judicial efficiency and would not offend federal-state comity concerns. See

e.g. Matthews v. Abramajtys, 92 F.Supp. 2d 615, 628 (E.D. Mich. 2000); aff’d in part,

rev’d in part on other grds, 319 F. 3d 780 (6th Cir. 2003).

2:09-cv-11884-AJT-VMM Doc # 12 Filed 09/30/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 119
Stoutmiles v. Bell, U.S.D.C. 09-CV-11884

4

Petitioner’s primary claim is that the Michigan Parole Board failed to offer

substantial or compelling reasons, as required by M.C.L.A. 791.233e, for departing

above the Michigan Parole Guidelines, which gave petitioner a high probability score

for being paroled. 

A parole board’s failure to set an inmate’s release date in accordance with

parole guidelines does not give rise to a due process claim. Johnson v. Renico, 314 F.

Supp. 2d 700, 713 (E.D. Mich. 2004); See also Coleman v. Martin, 63 Fed. Appx. 791,

792-93 (6th Cir. 2003)(prisoner could not maintain § 1983 action based upon the

erroneous scoring of his parole guidelines). In addition, the fact that Michigan’s parole

scheme requires the Michigan Parole Board to provide substantial and compelling

reasons to depart above the parole guidelines range does not create a protected liberty

interest in petitioner being released on parole. See Carnes v. Engler, 76 Fed. Appx. 79,

80 (6th Cir. 2003). Finally, the Michigan Parole Board gave valid reasons for departing

above the parole guidelines range in denying petitioner parole. 

Likewise, petitioner’s claim that the Michigan Parole Board continued his next

parole date in excess of twelve months, in violation of M.C.L.A. 24.207(7)(k) and

Admin. R. 791.7710(2)(c), fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. See

Green v. Bell, No. 2009 WL 1689919, * 2 (E.D. Mich. June 17, 2009)(citing Smith v.

Samper, No. 2005 WL 1037011, * 1-2 (W.D. Mich. May 4, 2005)). 

Finally, petitioner’s allegation that the Michigan Parole Board failed to comply

with Michigan’s Administrative Procedures Act in promulgating the new rules regarding

his eligibility for parole is non-cognizable, because the failure of a prison or a state to

2:09-cv-11884-AJT-VMM Doc # 12 Filed 09/30/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 120
Stoutmiles v. Bell, U.S.D.C. 09-CV-11884

5

follow its own policies or procedures does not amount to a constitutional violation. See

Coleman v. Martin, 363 F. Supp. 2d 894, 903 (E.D. Mich. 2005). 

IV. ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas

corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow 

Arthur J. Tarnow

United States District Judge

Dated: September 30, 2009

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

on September 30, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Catherine A. Pickles 

Judicial Secretary

2:09-cv-11884-AJT-VMM Doc # 12 Filed 09/30/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 121