Meadows III v. Hoffner
OPINION AND ORDER transferring successive petition for writ of habeas corpus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (DPer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CHARLES WILBUR MEADOWS, III,
Case Number 1:17-12569
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
BONITA J. HOFFNER,
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS TO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
Petitioner, Charles Wilbur Meadows, presently confined at the Lakeland Correctional
Facility in Coldwater, Michigan, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241, through his attorney Craig A. Daly. Because the present petition constitutes a
“second or successive petition” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), the Court will
transfer the matter to the Court of Appeals so that the petitioner may seek permission to proceed.
Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Oakland County Circuit Court of first-degree
murder and sentenced to a mandatory nonparolable life sentence. The Michigan Court of
Appeals ruled on the petitioner’s appeal of right that the state had failed to introduce sufficient
evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support a first-degree murder conviction and
remanded the matter to the Oakland County Circuit Court for entry of a judgment to the lesser
offense of second-degree murder. On February 17, 1978, Petitioner was re-sentenced to a
parolable life sentence consistent with the new judgment.
Petitioner has filed habeas petitions on at least three occasions. Although the first two
petitions were dismissed because Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies, see
Meadows v. Redman, No. 83-cv-72664-DT (E.D. Mich. 1985), Meadows v. Jones, No. 87-cv74386 (E.D. Mich. 1988), the final petition was denied on the merits. Meadows v. Pitcher, No.
90-cv-72103-DT (E.D. Mich. 1991); aff’d 959 F. 2d 235 (6th Cir. 1992) (table); cert den. 506
U.S. 1004 (1992).1 Petitioner has since been denied permission twice by the Sixth Circuit to file
a successive habeas petition. In Re Meadows, No. 00-1005 (6th Cir. May 11, 2000); In Re
Meadows, No. 00-1563 (6th Cir. Nov. 2, 2000).
Petitioner has now filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner claims that his rights were violated because the trial judge at the time of his resentencing on the second-degree murder charge failed to advise Petitioner that he could file an
appeal of right from his re-sentencing and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to
advise Petitioner that he could seek appellate relief from his re-sentencing. Petitioner seeks to
have his appeal of right reinstated.
Petitioner already has filed three prior petitions for a writ of habeas corpus challenging
his convictions and sentence. An individual seeking to file a second or successive habeas
petition must first ask the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court
to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S.
637, 641 (1998). Congress has vested in the court of appeals a screening function that the
district court would have performed otherwise. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996).
When a habeas petitioner files a second or successive petition for habeas corpus relief in the
The Court obtained some of the information concerning the disposition of Petitioner’s three habeas petitions from
the Sixth Circuit’s opinion affirming the denial of his third petition.
district court without preauthorization from the court of appeals, the district court must transfer
the document to the court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (directing that “[w]henever a civil
action is filed in a court ... and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall,
if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action ... to any other such court in which the action
... could have been brought at the time it was filed”); In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997)
(holding that “when a prisoner has sought § 2244(b)(3) permission from the district court, or
when a second or successive petition for habeas corpus relief or § 2255 motion is filed in the
district court without § 2244(b)(3) authorization from this court, the district court shall transfer
the document to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.”).
The fact that Petitioner filed his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and not under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 does not permit Petitioner to circumvent the limitations on the filing of successive
habeas petitions found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). Section 2241 authorizes federal district
courts to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state or federal prisoner who is in custody in violation
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 28 U.S.C.§
2254 is more specific and confers jurisdiction on district courts to “entertain an application for a
writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court
only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that when two statutes cover the
same situation, the more specific statute takes precedence over the more general one. See
Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 657 (1997). The Sixth Circuit has noted that “numerous
federal decisions ...support the view that all petitions filed on behalf of persons in custody
pursuant to State court judgments are filed under section 2254” and are subject to the various
restrictions imposed by the AEDPA for obtaining habeas relief from a state conviction. See
Rittenberry v. Morgan, 468 F.3d 331, 337 (6th Cir. 2006) (emphasis original). The provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) which govern the filing of successive petitions by state prisoners under §
2254 thus apply equally to habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a person who is in
custody pursuant to a state court judgment. Id., at 336-37; See also Long v. Commonwealth of
Kentucky, 80 F. App’x. 410, 414 (6th Cir. 2003); Byrd v. Bagley, 37 F. App’x. 94, 95 (6th Cir.
Petitioner’s argument that § 2241 is the appropriate remedy because he only challenges
the execution of his sentence and not his conviction is not well taken. Petitioner is seeking to
reinstate his appeal of right in the state courts. As such, the only appropriate statute for him to
bring his habeas petition under would be § 2254 and not § 2241. See e.g. Washington v. Sobina,
509 F. 3d 613, 618, n. 5 (3rd Cir. 2007) (state prison inmate seeking federal habeas relief on
ground that his due process speedy-appeal rights had been infringed by state courts was required
to bring his habeas challenge under § 2254 and not § 2241); Gorbey v. Warden of the Federal
Transfer Center, 588 F. App’x. 805, 811 (10th Cir. 2014) (“Since [petitioner’s] claim of
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is clearly an attack on his convictions and sentence
entered by the D.C. trial court, it must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not under 28 U.S.C. §
Petitioner must therefore seek authorization from the Sixth Circuit under § 2244 (b)
before filing this petition, even though he facially filed it pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2241.
Rittenberry, 468 F.3d at 338.
Petitioner cannot proceed with the issues raised in the present petition without first
obtaining permission to file a second or successive habeas petition from the court of appeals.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court will be ordered to transfer the habeas petition to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to Sims and 28 U.S.C. § 1631. See Galka
v. Caruso, 599 F. Supp. 2d 854, 857 (E.D. Mich. 2009).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, and
the related motion for bond, ECF No. 2, are DENIED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
It is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall TRANSFER the petition to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Dated: August 14, 2017
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on August 14, 2017.
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?