Brooks v. Bergh, CIVIL NO. 2:14-CV-12576

• Decision Date: 17 July 2014
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 2:14-CV-12576
• Parties: EDWIN DEWAYNE BROOKS, Petitioner, v. DAVID BERGH, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

EDWIN DEWAYNE BROOKS, Petitioner, v. DAVID BERGH, Respondent.

CIVIL NO. 2:14-CV-12576

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: July 17, 2014

HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Edwin DeWayne Brooks, ("Petitioner"), confined at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his pro se application, petitioner challenges his conviction for first-degree home invasion, M.C.L.A. 750.110a(2); second-degree home invasion, M.C.L.A. 750.110a(3); receiving and concealing stolen firearms, M.C.L.A. 750.535b; felon in possession of a firearm, M.C.L.A. 750.224f; and receiving and concealing a stolen motor-vehicle, M.C.L.A. 750.535(7). For the reasons stated below, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is SUMMARILY DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

I. Background

Petitioner was convicted of the above offenses following a jury trial in the Berrien County Circuit Court. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Michigan Court of Appeals. People v. Brooks, No. 293840;2011 WL 4389217 (Mich.Ct.App. September 20, 2011). Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court.While that application was pending, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed without prejudice because petitioner had failed to exhaust his claims with the state courts. Brooks v. Bergh, No. 2:12-CV-10573; 2012 WL 530087 (E.D.Mich. February 17, 2012). The Michigan Supreme Court subsequently denied petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Brooks, 491 Mich. 919, 812 N.W.2d 732 (2012).

Petitioner then filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment pursuant to M.C.R. 6.500, et. Seq., which was denied by the Berrien County Circuit Court. Petitioner does not appear to have appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion to the Michigan appellate courts. ¹

Petitioner has filed a document entitled "Special Circumstances Requiring Prompt Intervention Into State Court Case." Within his pleadings, petitioner references several times to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal habeas statute, and asks that a writ of habeas corpus be granted and that his criminal conviction be vacated. Given that petitioner specifically refers to the habeas corpus statute and requests immediate release from his conviction, this Court will construe his action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See e.g. Simpson v. Caruso, 355 Fed. Appx. 927, 930 (6^th Cir. 2009).

Petitioner seeks habeas relief from his conviction on the ground that the Berrien County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to try his case. Petitioner specifically contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his case because the prosecutor and police violated the Federal Kidnaping Act when they extradited petitioner from the State of Indiana without first obtaining a proper complaint or arrest warrant. Petitioner also appears to argue that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his case because of an improper bindover following the preliminary examination. Lastly, petitioner appears to argue that the state trial court judge erred in denying his post-conviction motion for relief from judgment.

II. Standard of Review

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 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.

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 thelaw 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.

The Supreme Court explained that "[A] federal court's collateral review of a state-court decision must be consistent with the respect due state courts in our federal system." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003). The "AEDPA thus imposes a 'highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,'and 'demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.'" Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010) ((quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 333, n. 7 (1997); Woodford v. Viscotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam)). "[A] state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision." Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786 (2011) (citing Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). The Supreme Court emphasized "that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable." Id. (citing Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003). Furthermore, pursuant to § 2254(d), "a habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or...could have supported, the state court's decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision" of the Supreme Court. Id.

In addition, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must set forth facts that give rise to a cause of action under federal law or it may summarily be dismissed. See Perez v. Hemingway, 157 F. Supp. 2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Federal courts are alsoauthorized to dismiss any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). A federal district court is authorized to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it plainly appears from the face of the petition or the exhibits that are attached to it that the petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. See Carson v. Burke, 178 F. 3d 434, 436 (6^th Cir. 1999); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The Sixth Circuit, in fact, long ago indicated that they "disapprove the practice of issuing a show cause order [to the respondent] until after the District Court first has made a careful examination of the petition." Allen v. Perini, 424 F. 3d 134, 140 (6^th Cir. 1970). A district court therefore has the duty to screen out any habeas corpus petition which lacks merit on its face. Id. at 141. No return to a habeas petition is necessary when the petition is frivolous, or obviously lacks merit, or where the necessary facts can be determined from the petition itself without consideration of a return by the state. Id.

After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, this Court concludes, for reasons stated in greater detail below, that petitioner's claims do not entitle him to habeas relief, such that the petition must be summarily denied. See Robinson v. Jackson, 366 F. Supp. 2d 524, 525 (E.D. Mich. 2005).

III. Discussion

Petitioner argues that his conviction should be set aside because the state trial court never obtained jurisdiction over his case because the prosecutor and the police violated the Federal Kidnaping Act by forcibly abducting petitioner from the State of Indiana without first obtaining a proper criminal complaint or arrest warrant. Petitioner further contends that the Berrien County Circuit Court never acquired jurisdiction over hiscase because of defects at the preliminary examination. Petitioner also appears to argue that the trial judge erred in denying his post-conviction motion.

As an initial matter, it is unclear whether petitioner properly exhausted his claims with the state courts. As a general rule, a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief must first exhaust his available state court remedies before raising a claim in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c). See Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 275-78 (1971). A prisoner confined pursuant to a Michigan conviction must raise each habeas issue in both the Michigan Court of Appeals and in the Michigan Supreme Court before seeking federal habeas corpus relief. Mohn v. Bock, 208 F. Supp. 2d 796, 800 (E.D. Mich. 2002). A habeas petitioner has the burden of proving that he or she has exhausted his or her state court remedies. Sitto v. Bock, 207 F. Supp. 2d 668, 675 (E.D. Mich. 2002). The failure to exhaust state court remedies may be raised sua sponte by a federal court. See Benoit v. Bock, 237 F. Supp. 2d 804, 806 (E.D. Mich. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).

Federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable to a state prisoner who fails to allege that he or she has exhausted his or her available state court remedies. See Granville v. Hunt, 411 F. 2d 9, 11 (5^th Cir. 1969). The instant petition is subject to dismissal, because petitioner has failed to allege or indicate in his petition that he has exhausted his state court remedies. See Peralta v....