Hubbert v. Haas, Case No.14-12225
| Decision Date | 25 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No.14-12225 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER HUBBERT, Petitioner, v. RANDALL HAAS, Respondent. |
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
Christopher Hubbert ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner currently confined at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his pro se application, Petitioner challenges his conviction for assault with intent to commit murder, M.C.L. § 750.83, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony ["felony-firearm"], M.C.L. § 750.227b. For the reasons stated below, the application for a writ of habeas corpus is SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to the above offenses in the Wayne County Circuit Court and was sentenced to three to fifteen years in prison on the assault with intent to commit murder charge and an additional two years on the felony-firearm charge.
After his conviction and sentence, Petitioner did not file a direct appeal. Instead, Petitioner states that he filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with the trial court, and that this motion for post-conviction relief was denied.1 However, Petitioner did not appeal the denial of this motion to the Michigan Court of Appeals or Michigan Supreme Court. See Dkt. 1, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, p. 3.
Petitioner now seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following grounds:
The instant petition is subject to dismissal because federal law requires that, in order to bring a habeas petition, a Petitioner must first advance his case through all available state procedures; that is, his claims must be properly "exhausted" inthe state courts before he is allowed to bring a habeas petition in federal court. Because it does not appear that Petitioner has raised these claims through all the available state processes, his petition must be dismissed.
The federal statute governing habeas corpus petitions provides that "[a]n 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 unless it appears that:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) and (B).
A state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief must, therefore, first exhaust his available state court remedies before raising a claim in federal court. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 275-78 (1971). Consistent with this, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") has preserved the traditional exhaustion requirement, which mandates dismissal of a habeas petition containing claims that a petitioner has a right to raise in the state courts but has failed to do so. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c) (); see also Welch v. Burke, 49 F. Supp. 2d 992, 998 (E.D. Mich.1999). Thus, 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). Moreover, 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). Further, 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 (5th Cir. 1969). In this case, the petition is subject to dismissal because Petitioner has failed to state that he has exhausted his state court remedies. See Peralta v. Leavitt, 56 F. App'x 534, 535 (2nd Cir. 2003); see also Fast v. Wead, 509 F. Supp. 744, 746 (N.D. Ohio 1981).
Petitioner does indicate that he filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with the trial court, which he claims was denied. However, Petitioner also appears to state that he did not raise any of the eight claims now raised in this petition before the Michigan courts on either direct appeal or in a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment. To the extent that the eight claims raised in this petition are being raised for the first time, they are clearly "un-exhausted" (they were never raised, and appealed, through the state court procedures).
Likewise, even if Petitioner presented his current claims in a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment, the claims are not yet exhausted because Petitioner failed to appeal the denial of the post-conviction motion to the Michigan Court of Appeals or the Michigan Supreme Court. In order to exhaust a claim for federal habeas review, a petitioner must present each ground to both state appellate courts, even where the state's highest court provides only discretionary review. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845-47 (1999)). Denial of a motion for relief from judgment is reviewable by the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court upon the filing of an application for leave to appeal. M.C.R. 6.509; M.C.R. 7.203; M.C.R. 7.302; see Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 414 (6th Cir. 2009). Where a habeas petitioner has an opportunity under state law to file an appeal following the state trial court's denial of his state post-conviction motion, and fails to do so, the petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies. See Cox v. Cardwell, 464 F.2d 639, 644-45 (6th Cir. 1972). Because Petitioner failed to complete the appellate process for any post-conviction motion that he may have filed, he has failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement for any claims presented in that motion. See e.g. Paffhousen v. Grayson, 238 F.3d 423 (Table), No. 2000 WL 1888659, at *2 (6th Cir. December 19, 2000); Mohn v. Bock, 208 F. Supp. 2d at 800.
Finally, although the record before the Court does not allow the Court to confirm this, Petitioner seems to suggest in the body of his petition that he may have filed a state petition for habeas corpus, and that this state petition included the claims he now seeks to raise in his federal petition. Even assuming thatpetitioner did file a state habeas petition raising these same claims in the Wayne County Circuit Court, filing a state habeas action is insufficient to satisfy the exhaustion requirement.
Michigan law states that an action for habeas corpus may not be brought by or on behalf of persons convicted, or in execution, upon legal process, civil or criminal. M.C.L. § 600.4310(3). This statutory prohibition is consistent with Michigan case law providing that habeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal and cannot be used to review the merits of a criminal conviction. Cross v. Department of Corrections, 103 Mich. App. 409, 414-415; 303 N. W. 2d 218 (1981) (citing People v. Price, 23 Mich. App. 663, 669; 179 N.W. 2d 177 (1970)). This is because a writ of habeas corpus in Michigan may only be used to challenge radical defects which render a judgment or proceeding absolutely void. Triplett v. Deputy Warden, 142 Mich. App. 774, 780; 371 N. W. 2d 862 (1985) (citing In Re Stone, 295 Mich. 207; 294 N.W. 156 (1940)). A judgment which is merely erroneous, rather than void, is subject to [appellate] review and may not be collaterally attacked in a habeas proceeding. Id. This policy of limiting habeas proceedings in Michigan is "premised on the concern that such an action may be abused and substituted for normal appellate proceedings." Walls v. Director of Institutional Services Maxie Boy's Training School, 84 Mich. App. 355, 357; 269 N. W. 2d 599 (1978).2 Thus,because M.C.L. § 600.4310(3) does not permit the use of a state habeas action to challenge the legality of a conviction, Petitioner could not have used such an action to meet the exhaustion requirement. See Nabors v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pa., 848 F.2d 192 (Table), 1988 WL 50635, at *1 (6th Cir. May 23, 1988); see also McPharlin v. Woods, 2008 WL 4534234, at *1 (E.D. Mich. October 6, 2008).
A statutory exception to the exhaustion requirement exists only if there is no opportunity to obtain relief in the state courts or if the corrective process is so clearly deficient as to render futile any effort to obtain relief in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)((B); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981); Sitto v. Bock, 207 F. Supp. 2d at 676. A habeas petitioner, however, has the burden of showing that all available state court remedies have been exhausted or that exceptional circumstances exist which would make exhaustion unnecessary. Doty v. Lund, 78 F. Supp. 2d 898, 901 (N.D. Iowa 1999).
Petitioner appears to argue that exhaustion of state court remedies should be excused because substitute appellate counsel was never appointed to represent him on his direct appeal. Petitioner does not offer any reasons...
To continue reading
Request your trial