Lyons v. Lafler

Filing 67

ORDER Denying Motion 63 to Correct or Modify the Record Based on Newly Discovered Evidence, Motion 64 to Entertain Letter and Motion 65 for the State to Execute Its Constitutional Mandated Duty to Pray for Justice from a Wrongful Conviction. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEROY LYONS,
Case Number: 2:10-CV-11386

Petitioner,

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
BLAINE LAFLER,
Respondent.
/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS (Dkt. # 64, # 65, & # 63)
Petitioner Leroy Lyons is a Michigan prisoner serving two life sentences. In 1999,
Lyons was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. In 2010, Lyons filed a habeas
corpus petition. This Court denied the petition. (Dkt. # 24). The Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals also denied a certificate of appealability. (Dkt. # 45). Lyons then filed a “Rule
60 Motion subsection (d) Fraud on this Court” (Dkt. #48), which the Court denied (Dkt.
49). Now before the Court are Lyons’ “Motion to Entertain a Letter” (Dkt. # 64),
“Motion for the State to Execute Its Constitutional Mandated Duty to Pray for Justice
from a Wrongful Conviction” (Dkt. # 65), and “Motion to Correct or Modify the Record
Based on Newly Discovered Evidence” (Dkt. # 63).
The three motions concern Lyons’ claim that he was wrongfully convicted.
Petitioner’s Motion to Entertain a Letter asks the Court to accept and consider a letter
from Petitioner in which he asserts innocence and repeats previously denied claims

challenging his trial and convictions.
The habeas corpus proceeding has concluded. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
declined to issue a certificate of appealability. There is no basis for the Court to rehear or
reconsider the claims raised in the letter. This motion is denied.
Second, Petitioner filed a Motion for the State to Execute Its Constitutional
Mandated Duty to Pray for Justice from a Wrongful Conviction. The motion appears to
ask the Court to compel the State to concur with Petitioner’s assessment that prosecutorial
misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and physical evidence resulted in his
improper conviction. The Court denied the habeas petition and subsequent motions.
Petitioner has not shown entitlement to habeas relief. The Court will not require the State
to concede that Petitioner was improperly convicted.
Finally, Petitioner filed a Motion to Correct or Modify the Record Based Upon
Newly Discovered Evidence. Ordinarily, a motion seeking to present newly discovered
evidence not presented in the petition should be classified as a “second or successive
habeas petition,” and transferred to the Court of Appeals for authorization pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005). In
this case, however, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals already declined to authorize the
filing of a successive petition based upon the same “new” evidence raised in the pending
motion. The Court, therefore, denies the motion without transfer to the Court of Appeals.
Accord Campbell v. Myers, No. 03-02926, 2017 WL 4640441, *2 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 16,
2017) (declining to transfer successive habeas petition to court of appeals where the
2

petitioner was previously denied authorization to file a successive petition).
In summary, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s “Motion to Entertain a Letter” (Dkt. #
64), “Motion for the State to Execute Its Constitutional Mandated Duty to Pray for Justice
from a Wrongful Conviction” (Dkt. # 65), and “Motion to Correct or Modify the Record
Based on Newly Discovered Evidence” (Dkt. # 63).
SO ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: January 30, 2018
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Leroy Lyons by electronic means or U.S. Mail
on January 30, 2018.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

3