Silsby v. Hoffner
Filing
12
ORDER denying 10 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LARRY SILSBY, #156315,
Petitioner,
v.
CASE NO. 2:12-CV–13380
HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH
BONITA HOFFNER,
Respondent.
/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability
regarding the Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court dismissed the petition due to the fact that Petitioner was discharged from the 1981
Oakland County Circuit Court conspiracy to commit second-degree murder conviction and sentence
challenged in the petition in 1998. The Court also denied a certificate of appealability and leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Court has since denied reconsideration.
Having reviewed Petitioner’s motion, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its denial of
a certificate of appealability (or its dismissal decision). Reasonable jurists could not debate the
correctness of the Court’s procedural ruling. A motion for reconsideration which presents issues
already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted.
See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall & Assoc.,
P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Petitioner has not met his burden of showing a
palpable defect by which the Court has been misled or his burden of showing that a different
disposition must result from a correction thereof, as required by Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).
-1-
Petitioner claims that his expired sentence is being used to deny him parole on his 1979
convictions for first-degree criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping for which he was sentenced to
life in prison. The Supreme Court, however, has made clear that “once the sentence imposed for a
conviction has completely expired, the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves
sufficient to render an individual ‘in custody’ for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it.” Maleng
v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989). There is no rule that a petitioner is “in custody” on any
conviction so long as it may affect his chances of parole. See, e.g., Van Zant v. Florida Parole
Comm'n, 104 F.3d 325, 328 (11th Cir. 1997); Henrix v. Lynaugh, 888 F.2d 336, 338 (5th Cir. 1989).
Moreover, given that the 1981 conviction post-dates the 1979 convictions, it is clear that it was not
used to enhance those sentences. Additionally, given that Petitioner asserts that trial and appellate
counsel were ineffective in his 1981 proceedings, he has not shown that he was denied counsel in
those proceedings so as to fit within the exception set forth in Lackawanna Co. Dist. Attorney v.
Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001). The Court properly dismissed his habeas petition and denied a
certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability. This
case is closed. No further pleadings should be filed in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 17, 2012
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record and on
Larry Silsby #156315, Lakeland Correctional Facility,
141 First Street, Coldwater, MI 49036, on
October 17, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk
-3-
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?