Broadenax v. Rivard

Filing 7

OPINION and ORDER Dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Vacating 4 Order to Show Cause, Denying a Certificate of Appealability, and Denying Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (Monda, H)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY BROADENAX,
Petitioner,

Case Number 14-cv-14027
Judge Matthew F. Leitman

STEVE RIVARD,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS (ECF #1), VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
(ECF #4), DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND
DENYING PERMISSION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
I. Introduction
In 1979, Petitioner Gregory Broadenax, (“Petitioner”) pleaded guilty in state
court to a charge of second-degree murder, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.317.
Petitioner is serving a life sentence for that plea-based conviction with the
Michigan Department of Corrections. Petitioner has now filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See the “Petition,” ECF #1.)
The Petition argues that the state trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over
Petitioner’s case. (See id.)
After preliminary review of the Petition, the Court ordered Petitioner to
show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the
1

one-year statute of limitations. (See the “Show Cause Order,” ECF #4.) Petitioner
thereafter filed a response to the Show Cause Order arguing that because he is
raising a jurisdictional claim, the statute of limitations does not apply to the
Petition. (See ECF #6.) For the reasons stated below, the Court vacates the Show
Cause Order, dismisses the Petition as untimely, denies Petitioner a certificate of
appealability, and denies Petitioner permission to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal.
II. Procedural History
Following his plea-based conviction and sentence, Petitioner filed a belated
motion in state court to withdraw his plea. Petitioner thereafter appealed his
conviction, and on August 5, 1991, the Michigan Supreme Court denied his
application for leave to appeal. See People v. Broadenax, No. 90806 (Mich. Sup.
Ct. Aug. 5, 1991). According to the allegations in the Petition, Petitioner appears
to have filed a second post-conviction proceeding in the state trial court sometime
in 1992. Petitioner then pursued another appeal through the Michigan Supreme
Court, which denied relief on March 29, 1994. See People v. Broadenax, 444
Mich. 985, 518 N.W.2d 482 (Mich. 1994) (Table). Petitioner filed the instant
Petition over twenty years later, on October 20, 2014.

2

III. Discussion
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a
one-year statute of limitations applies to an application for writ of habeas corpus
by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court. The one-year
limitations period runs 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).
Absent tolling, a petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed where
it has not been filed before the limitations period expires.

See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1); see also Allen v. Yukins, 366 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2004).
There is no dispute in this matter as to whether the statute of limitations for
an attack on Petitioner’s conviction expired before Petitioner filed his instant
3

Petition. It plainly did. The relevant judgment was entered in 1979, and the
Michigan Supreme Court last denied relief in 1994. Since the time for seeking
further direct review in the United States Supreme Court expired prior to the
effective date of the AEDPA, Petitioner had until April 23, 1997 – one year
following the date that AEDPA became effective – to file a federal habeas petition
attacking the original judgment. See Stokes v. Williams, 475 F.3d 732, 733-34 (6th
Cir. 2007) (a petitioner's conviction that became final before AEDPA became law
is entitled to a one-year grace period from April 24, 1996, to April 23, 1997).
Petitioner failed to meet this deadline, and the statute of limitations for a habeas
attack on the original judgment expired on April 23, 1997. Petitioner does not
dispute this point.
Instead, Petitioner argues that because he is challenging the subject-matter
jurisdiction of the trial court, the limitations period does not apply to his case.
Petitioner is incorrect.

Indeed, federal courts – including this Court – have

consistently held that “there is no exception” to AEDPA’s one-year statute of
limitation “for subject matter jurisdiction claims.”

Griffin v. Padula, 518

F.Supp.2d 671, 677 (D.S.C. 2007) (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted); see also Hornsby v. Booker, 06-cv-12608, 2007 WL 1499839, at *1
(E.D. Mich. May 22, 2007) (denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and
4

reiterating that “a prisoner filing a habeas corpus petition is not exempt from the
statute of limitations simply because the prisoner raises a claim that the state court
lacked jurisdiction”); Umbarger v. Burt, 2008 WL 3911988, at *1-2 (W.D. Mich.
Aug. 19, 2008) (same; collecting cases); Meadows v. Warden, Allen Correctional
Institution, 2011 WL 4442644, at *4-*5 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2011) (report and
recommendation) (concluding that “[f]ederal courts considering whether subject
matter jurisdiction claims provide an exemption from the AEDPA’s statute of
limitations have uniformly rejected such claims”), adopted at 2011 WL 4434877
(S.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2011); Gladden v. Blount Cnty., 2013 WL 5707319 (N.D.
Ala. Oct. 21, 2013), at *4 (collecting cases). Petitioner cites no authority to the
contrary.

The Court therefore concludes that Petitioner's subject-matter

jurisdiction claim does not exempt him from complying with the statute of
limitations. Because the time by which Petitioner needed to file his current Petition
has long expired, the Petition is untimely, and the Court denies Petitioner habeas
relief on that basis.
III. Conclusion and Certificate of Appealability
Before Petitioner may appeal this Court’s denial of his habeas petition, a
certificate of appealability must be issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); see also
Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the
5

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a court denies relief on the merits, the substantial
showing threshold is met if the petitioner demonstrates that reasonable jurists
would find the court’s assessment of the claim debatable or wrong. See Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). When a court denies relief on procedural
grounds without addressing the merits, a certificate of appealability should issue if
it is shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petitioner
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling. See id. Having undertaken the requisite review, the Court concludes that
jurists of reason could not find debatable the Court’s procedural ruling here that the
Petition is untimely.

The Court will additionally deny Petitioner permission to

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis because any appeal would be frivolous.

6

IV. Order
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for
a writ of habeas corpus (ECF #1) is DENIED; that the Show Cause Order (ECF
#4) is vacated; and that the Petition and this action are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and
permission to appeal in forma pauperis are DENIED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 12, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 12, 2015, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

7