Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150313_0000329.WMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-17 13:00:25
Document Index: 332252622

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 750', '§ 750', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2253', '§ 2253', '§ 2254']

| Hoard v. MacLaren
Hoard v. MacLaren
NATHANIEL SINCLAIR HOARD, Petitioner,v.DUNCAN MACLAREN, Respondent.
Discussion I. Factual allegations Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the Kinross Correctional Facility. He pleaded guilty in the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court to armed robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529, and receiving and concealing stolen property, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.535(3)(a). On February 24, 2012, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to eight to twenty years for the armed-robbery conviction and three to five years for the stolen-property conviction.
Petitioner pursued a direct appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court, raising five claims. On September 24, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court denied his application for leave to appeal because it was not persuaded the questions presented should be reviewed by the court.
On or about November 17, 2014, [1] Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in this Court, along with a motion to stay the proceedings (docket #4) in order to exhaust his state-court remedies for new claims that he seeks to present in a motion for relief from judgment, and a motion for a hearing (docket #5) on his petition, motion to stay and motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
In this case, it is clear that Petitioner intends to assert one or more claims that were not previously raised in the Michigan appellate courts, and that he intends to bring those claims in a motion for relief from judgment under subchapter 6.500 of the Michigan Court Rules. Under Michigan law, one such motion may be filed after August 1, 1995. Mich. Ct. R. 6.502(G)(1). It appears that Petitioner has not yet filed his one allotted motion. Therefore, the Court concludes that he has at least one available state-court remedy. In order to properly exhaust his unexhausted claims, Petitioner must file a motion for relief from judgment in the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court. If his motion is denied by the circuit court, Petitioner must appeal that decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. See Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66.
Because Petitioner has some claims that are exhausted and some that are not, his petition is “mixed.” Under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982), district courts are directed to dismiss mixed petitions without prejudice in order to allow petitioners to return to state court to exhaust remedies. However, since the habeas statute was amended to impose a one-year statute of limitations on habeas claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), dismissal without prejudice often effectively precludes future federal habeas review. This is particularly true after the Supreme Court ruled in Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001), that the limitations period is not tolled during the pendency of a federal habeas petition. As a result, the Sixth Circuit adopted a stay-and-abeyance procedure to be applied to mixed petitions. See Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir. 2002). In Palmer, the Sixth Circuit held that when the dismissal of a mixed petition could jeopardize the timeliness of a subsequent petition, the district court should dismiss only the unexhausted claims and stay further proceedings on the remaining portion until the petitioner has exhausted his claims in the state court. Id.; see also Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2007) (approving stay-and-abeyance procedure); Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 652 n.1 (6th Cir. 2002).
Petitioner’s application is subject to the one-year statute of limitations provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Under § 2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year limitations period runs from “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. The Michigan Supreme Court denied his application on September 24, 2014. Petitioner did not petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, though the ninety-day period in which he could have sought review in the United States Supreme Court is counted under § 2244(d)(1)(A). See Bronaugh v. Ohio, 235 F.3d 280, 283 (6th Cir. 2000). The ninety-day period expired on December 23, 2014. Accordingly, absent tolling, Petitioner would have one year, until December 23, 2015, in which to file his habeas petition.
The Palmer Court has indicated that thirty days is a reasonable amount of time for a petitioner to file a motion for post-conviction relief in state court, and another thirty days is a reasonable amount of time for a petitioner to return to federal court after he has exhausted his state-court remedies. Palmer, 276 F.3d at 781. See also Griffin, 308 F.3d at 653 (holding that sixty days amounts to a mandatory period of equitable tolling under Palmer).[2] Petitioner has more than sixty days remaining in his limitations period. Assuming that Petitioner diligently pursues his state-court remedies and promptly returns to this Court after the Michigan Supreme Court issues its decision, he is not in danger of running afoul of the statute of limitations. Therefore a stay of these proceedings is not warranted. Should Petitioner decide not to pursue his unexhausted claims in the state courts, he may file a new petition raising only exhausted claims at any time before the expiration of the limitations period.
Moreover, Petitioner’s motion for a hearing (docket #5) on his petition, motion for a stay and motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied as moot as the Court is dismissing the instant action and denying Petitioner’s motion for a stay. In an order (docket #7) dated December 1, 2014, the Court previously denied Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust available state-court remedies. The Court will also deny Petitioner’s motion for a stay (docket #4) and his motion for a hearing (docket #5).
Certificate of Appealability Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court must determine whether a certificate of appealability should be granted. A certificate should issue if Petitioner has demonstrated a “substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This Court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s action under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases is a determination that the habeas action, on its face, lacks sufficient merit to warrant service. It would be highly unlikely for this Court to grant a certificate, thus indicating to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that an issue merits review, when the Court already has determined that the action is so lacking in merit that service is not warranted. See Love v. Butler, 952 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1991) (it is “somewhat anomalous” for the court to summarily dismiss under Rule 4 and grant a certificate); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990) (requiring reversal where court summarily dismissed under Rule 4 but granted certificate); Dory v. Comm’r of Corr., 865 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir. 1989) (it was “intrinsically contradictory” to grant a certificate when habeas action does not warrant service under Rule 4); Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n.1 (2d Cir. 1983) (issuing certificate would be inconsistent with a summary dismissal).
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has disapproved the issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district court must “engage in a reasoned assessment of each claim” to determine whether a certificate is warranted. Id. at 467. Each issue must be considered under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Consequently, this Court has examined each of Petitioner’s claims under the Slack standard.
This Court denied Petitioner’s application on the procedural ground of lack of exhaustion. Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, when a habeas petition is denied on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability may issue only “when the prisoner shows, at least, [1] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and [2] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Both showings must be made to warrant the grant of a certificate. Id. The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate that this Court correctly dismissed the petition on the procedural ground of lack of exhaustion. “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. Therefore, the Court denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability.