Craig v. Palmer

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER Summarily Dismissing re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jeremy Craig and Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Marianne O. Battani. (BThe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEREMY CRAIG,
Case No. 2:11-cv-12343
Petitioner,
HONORABLE MARIANNE O. BATTANI
v.
CARMEN PALMER,
Respondent.
/

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS
PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Petitioner Jeremy Craig is a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of
Corrections. This matter comes before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
filed by the Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Upon review, the Court concludes that
it does not have jurisdiction over the Petition because the Petition seeks an advisory
opinion. The Petition, therefore, will be summarily dismissed.
The Petitioner was convicted of one count of Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Second
Degree (CSC) in Wayne County Circuit Court on March 11, 2010, following a guilty plea.
He was sentenced in April 2010 to a sentence of 8 to 15 years imprisonment. Petitioner
applied for leave to appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which was denied on April
19, 2011, in docket number 302706. The Petitioner has not yet filed an application for
leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court because he has a pending motion for
reconsideration with the Michigan Court of Appeals.
The Petition does not challenge the constitutionality of Petitioner's conviction and
sentence for CSC. Instead, the Petitioner states that he filed an application for pardon or
commutation of his sentence with the Governor of the State of Michigan, which was denied

on March 15, 2011. In a letter sent to the Petitioner, the Governor's deputy legal counsel
advised that the Governor's denial of commutation or pardon was based on the
recommendation of the Michigan Parole and Commutation Board.
The Petition then presents the following “federal question”:
Does the federal court have jurisdiction to review de novo an application for
commutation of sentence which was denied by the office of the Governor of theState
of Michigan, Rick Snyder on the grounds only recommendation of the Michigan Parole
Board [sic] who simply stated that the application lacked merit and did not provide any
other grounds for said denial contrary to the petitioner['s] constitutional rights to a fair
hearing[] and executive clemency process an[d] in accordance with the 14th
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?
In his prayer for relief, Petitioner asks the Court to find that the Court has jurisdiction over
the decision being challenged by the Petitioner, to order the Respondent to file a
responsive pleading to answer the question presented, and to grant any further relief the
Court deems necessary and appropriate.
ANALYSIS
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
requires a district court to promptly examine a newly filed habeas petition. If it plainly
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief
in the district court, the petition must be dismissed. The Court has reviewed the Petition
and finds that it is subject to dismissal under Rule 4 because it plainly appears on the face
of the Petition that the Court does not have jurisdiction to provide the relief requested in the
Petition.
The Petition does not challenge Petitioner's conviction and sentence for CSC. Nor
could the Petitioner file a petition challenging his state conviction at this time because he
is in the process of exhausting his state court remedies with regard to his conviction and
sentence. Rather, the Petition asserts that the Governor of the State of Michigan denied

2

the Petitioner's application for pardon or commutation of his sentence, based on the
recommendation of the Michigan Parole and Commutation Board. The Petitioner seeks
to have the Court tell him whether it has jurisdiction to review his application. He also asks
the Court to tell him whether he is entitled to a fair hearing process, whether he is entitled
to know what documents, information, notes, letters, statements, or other factors were used
in the recommendations, and why there was no hearing held before the final determination
was made to reject his application for pardon or commutation.
Federal courts have no authority to give opinions upon abstract principles or declare
principles or rules of law. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971). Article III of
the United States Constitution empowers federal courts to hear only cases and
controversies. Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 239 (1937).
To be cognizable in federal court, a suit 'must be definite and concrete, touching the
legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests . . .. It must be a real and
substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of conclusive
character as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be on a
hypothetical state of facts.'
Rice, 404 U.S. at 246 (quoting Aetna Life, 300 U.S. at 240-41). The case and controversy
requirement prohibits federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. Fialka-Feldman v.
Oakland University Bd. of Trustees, 639 F.3d 711, 715 (6th Cir. 2011).
A federal court should liberally, and in some cases actively, construe a pro se habeas
petition to encompass any allegation stating federal relief. Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82,
85 (6th Cir. 1985). The Court, however, finds that the Petition cannot be construed to state
a claim for relief over which this Court has jurisdiction. The Petition does not challenge the
Petitioner's conviction or sentence and does not seek any form of concrete relief. Rather,
it seeks legal advice of the Court. As the relief requested in the Petition is beyond the
power of the Court to grant, the Court will dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.

3

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 provides that an appeal may not proceed
unless a certificate of appealability (COA) is issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Rule 11 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings requires the district court to “ issue or deny a
certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.”
A COA may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner must show “that
reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should
have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 'adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.'” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 and n.4 (1983)). In this case, the Court
concludes that reasonable jurists would not debate the Court's conclusion that it lacks
jurisdiction over the relief sought by the Petition. Therefore, the Court will deny a certificate
of appealability.

4

ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
SUMMARILY DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts.

The Court declines to issue a certificate of

appealability.

s/Marianne O. Battani
MARIANNE O. BATTANI
United States District Judge
Dated: July 14, 2011

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the above date a copy of this Opinion and Order was served
upon the Petitioner, Jeremy Craig, via ordinary U.S. Mail to Michigan Reformatory, 1342
West Main St., Ionia, MI. 48846.
s/Bernadette M. Thebolt
Case Manager

5