Quatrine v. Berghuis

• Decision Date: 27 February 2014
• Docket Number: Civil No. 2:10-CV-11603
• Parties: CHARLES QUATRINE, Jr., Petitioner, v. MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

CHARLES QUATRINE, Jr., Petitioner, v. MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent

Civil No. 2:10-CV-11603

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: February 27, 2014

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Charles Quatrine, Jr. ,("Petitioner"), confined at the Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon Heights, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus and two amended habeas petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with this Court, challenging his convictions for installing an eavesdropping device, M.C.L.A. 750.539d; child sexually abusive activity, M.C.L.A. 750.145c(2); and one count of child sexually abusive materials, M.C.L.A. 750.145c(4). Respondent has filed an answer and two supplemental answers to the original and amended petitions for writ of habeas corpus. As part of her two supplemental answers, respondent argues that petitioner's original and amended habeas petitions are barred by the statute of limitations contained within 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner has filed replies to the supplemental answers. For the reasons statedbelow, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is SUMMARILY DENIED. The Court will also deny as moot petitioner's motion for immediate consideration and deny the motion for bond.

I. Background

Petitioner was convicted of the above offenses following a jury trial in the Macomb County Circuit Court. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal, although the case was remanded to the trial court for a determination of petitioner's financial ability to reimburse the county for his court-appointed attorney. People v. Quatrine, No. 272074, No. 2008 WL 941780 (Mich.Ct.App. April 8, 2008). On September 9, 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court denied petitioner leave to appeal from the affirmance of his conviction by the Michigan Court of Appeals. People v. Quatrine, 482 Mich. 975; 755 N.W. 2d 183 (2008).

Petitioner then filed a motion for reduction of attorney fees, which was denied by the trial court. People v. Quatrine, Nos. 2005-1298-FH, 2005-1299-FH (Macomb County Circuit Court, February 29, 2008). Petitioner sought leave to appeal from the denial of his motion for reduction of his attorney fees and costs, which was denied. People v. Quatrine, No. 287572 (Mich.Ct.App. February 4, 2009); lv. den. 485 Mich. 925; 773 N.W. 2d 679 (2009); reconsideration den. 485 Mich. 1072; 777 N.W.2d 150 (2010).

On September 28, 2009, petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to M.C.R. 6.500, et. seq.¹ On October 2, 2009, the trial court rejected petitioner's motion pursuant to M.C.R. 6.508(D)(1) on the ground that his appeal regarding the additional attorney fees was pending before the Michigan Supreme Court. People v. Quatrine, Nos. 2005-1298-FH, 2005-1299-FH (Macomb County Circuit Court, October 2, 2009). Petitioner did not appeal the denial of this post-conviction motion to the Michigan appellate courts.

On November 19, 2009, petitioner refiled his motion for relief from judgment.² The trial court denied the motion on December 30, 2009. People v. Quatrine, Nos. 2005-1298-FH, 2005-1299-FH (Macomb County Circuit Court, December 30, 2009). On February 8, 2010, the trial court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. People v. Quatrine, Nos. 2005-1298-FH, 2005-1299-FH (Macomb County Circuit Court, February 8, 2010). Petitioner never appealed the denial of this motion for relief from judgment to the Michigan appellate courts.

On April 14, 2010, petitioner filed a "motion seeking stay and abeyance to perfect state remedies," in which he asked to file a protective petition and then have the case held in abeyance so he could return to the state courts to exhaustadditional claims.³

On April 30, 2010, this Court entered an opinion and order granting petitioner's motion to hold his habeas petition in abeyance pending the completion of state post-conviction proceedings by petitioner. The Court also administratively closed the case.

Petitioner returned to the state courts to file a second motion for relief from judgment. The trial court denied the motion as being an improperly filed successive motion for relief from judgment that was barred under M.C.R. 6.502(G). People v. Quatrine, Nos. 2005-1298-FH, 2005-1299-FH (Macomb County Circuit Court, July 15, 2010). The Michigan Court of Appeals denied petitioner leave to appeal pursuant to M.C.R. 6.502(G). People v. Quatrine, No. 301363 (Mich.Ct.App. January 19, 2011). The Michigan Supreme Court denied petitioner leave to appeal because the court was not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by that court. People v. Quatrine, 490 Mich. 967; 806 N.W. 2d 517 (2011).

On March 20, 2012, this Court granted petitioner's motion to reinstate the habeas petition to the active docket, granted his motion to amend the habeas petition, and ordered that the amended petition be served upon respondent. OnAugust 13, 2012, respondent filed an answer to the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.

On August 16, 2012, petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he sought to amend his petition to add six additional claims that he raised in his post-conviction motion in the state courts but failed to include in his first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus that he filed with this Court. On January 9, 2013, this Court granted petitioner's motion to amend the habeas petition to add these additional claims and gave respondent time to file a supplemental answer to address these claims. Respondent file their supplemental answer on March 6, 2013. As part of this first supplemental answer, respondent contends that petitioner's original and amended habeas petitions are time barred because both were filed outside of the one year time limit for filing habeas petitions that is contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

On August 15, 2013, this Court granted petitioner's motion to file a second amended habeas petition. Respondent filed a supplemental answer to this second amended habeas petition on October 11, 2013. In this second supplemental answer, respondent argued that the claim raised by petitioner in his second amended habeas petition is also time barred pursuant to the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

II. Discussion

The original and amended petitions for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed because they were not been filed within the one year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).⁴

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a one year statute of limitations shall apply to an application for writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court. The one year statute of limitation shall run from the latest of:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

Although not jurisdictional, the AEDPA's one year limitations period "effectively bars relief absent a showing that the petition's untimeliness should beexcused based on equitable tolling and actual innocence." See Akrawi v. Booker, 572 F. 3d 252, 260 (6^th Cir. 2009). A petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed where it has not been filed within the one year statute of limitations. See e.g. Williams v. Wilson, 149 Fed. Appx. 342 (6^th Cir. 2005).

Petitioner's direct appeal of his conviction ended when the Michigan Supreme Court denied petitioner leave to appeal on September 9, 2008. Petitioner's conviction would become final, for the purposes of the AEDPA's limitations period, on the date that the 90 day time period for seeking certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court expired. See Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 119 (2009). Petitioner's judgment became final on December 9, 2008, when he failed to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. See Holloway v. Jones, 166 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1187 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Petitioner therefore had until December 9, 2009 to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus unless the statute of limitations was somehow tolled.

The Court is aware that on petitioner's appeal of right the Michigan Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of petitioner's ability to reimburse the county for the cost of his court-appointed attorney. The trial judge subsequently denied petitioner's motion to suspend fees and costs. Petitioner appealed the trial court's denial of his request to the Michigan appellate courts. Neither the state trial court's order denying petitioner's motion to suspend his attorney fees or his appeal from the trial court's denial would delay thecommencement of the one year statute or limitations. The Michigan Court of Appeals' order of remand did not order a re-sentencing or otherwise vacate petitioner's conviction, nor did the trial court judge issue a new judgment when denying petitioner's request to suspend the payment of attorney fees. Instead, the remand order was limited to a technical error regarding the trial judge's failure to determine petitioner's financial ability to reimburse the court for the cost of his cour...