Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180223_0000411.WMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:51:06+00:00

Document:
This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has the duty to “screen out” petitions that lack merit on their face). A dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court may sua sponte dismiss a habeas action as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209 (2006). After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, I conclude that the petition is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
Petitioner Rubin Lamont Stone is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at Alger Correctional Facility (LMF) in Munising, Alger County, Michigan. On February 25, 2004, a St. Joseph County Circuit Court jury, found Petitioner guilty of first-degree home invasion, larceny of a firearm, felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The court imposed sentences of 18 to 40 years for home invasion, 3 to 10 years for larceny of a firearm, 3 to 10 years for felon in possession of a firearm, and 2 years for felony firearm, all to be served consecutively.
Petitioner filed an appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals, which was denied on December 15, 2005. Petitioner's subsequent application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court was denied on April 28, 2006. Petitioner took no further action until June 11, 2011, when he filed an unsuccessful motion for relief from judgment in the state trial court. Petitioner states that his motion for relief from judgment was denied on August 30, 2011, and that his delayed application for leave to appeal was denied by the Michigan Court of Appeals on March 29, 2013.
On August 25, 2017, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition. Under Sixth Circuit precedent, the application is deemed filed when handed to prison authorities for mailing to the federal court. Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2002). Petitioner signed his application on August 21, 2017. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.20.) The petition was received by the Court on August 25, 2017. For purposes of this Report and Recommendation, I have given Petitioner the benefit of the earliest possible filing date. See Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that the date the prisoner signs the document is deemed under Sixth Circuit law to be the date of handing to officials) (citing Goins v. Saunders, 206 F. App'x 497, 498 n.1 (6th Cir. 2006)).
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The running of the statute of limitations is tolled when “a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see also Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001) (limiting the tolling provision to only State, and not Federal, processes); Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (defining “properly filed”).

References: § 2254
 § 2254
 § 2243
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2244
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2244
 § 2244
 v. 
 v.