Jackson v. Berghuis
Filing
88
OPINION and ORDER Denying 87 MOTION for Reconsideration re 84 Memorandum Opinion & Order Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS JACKSON,
Petitioner,
Case No. 15-cv-11622
v.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
LES PARISH,
Respondent.
______________
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[#87]
Petitioner Douglas Jackson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for three counts of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct, one count of assault with intent to do great
bodily harm, and one count of unlawful imprisonment. This Court held the petition
in abeyance and administratively closed the case to permit Petitioner to complete
state post-conviction proceedings in the state courts where he had attempted to
exhaust additional claims. Jackson v. Parish, No. 15-CV-11622, 2019 WL 4573799
(E.D. Mich. Sept. 20, 2019).
Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration [#87].
For the reasons that follow, the Court will DENY the motion.
Local Rule 7.1 allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. E.D. Mich.
L.R. § 7.1(g). However, a motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues
already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will
not be granted. Whitehouse Condo. Grp., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 959 F. Supp.
2d 1024, 1031 (E.D. Mich. 2013). A motion for reconsideration should be granted
if the movant demonstrates a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have
been misled and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction
thereof. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 79 F.
Supp. 2d 768, 797 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
Here, Petitioner argues that this Court erred in holding the petition in abeyance
because he alleges that the state courts are unwilling to provide him post-conviction
relief. Petitioner believes that the trial judge erred by construing his amended motion
for relief from judgment as a successive petition, which is precluded under Chapter
6 of the Michigan Court Rules. M.C.R. 6.502(G). Petitioner further notes that when
he filed a motion for reconsideration after his motion for relief from judgment was
denied, the judge never ruled on the motion. Petitioner argues that he already
presented his claims to the state courts and no longer has any available state court
remedies. Petitioner essentially argues that it would be futile to require him to
exhaust his claims.
An exception to the exhaustion requirement exists only if there is no
opportunity to obtain relief in the state courts or if the corrective process is so clearly
deficient as to render futile any effort to obtain relief in the state courts. Duckworth
v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981); Sitto v. Bock, 207 F. Supp. 2d 668, 676 (E.D. Mich.
2002). A habeas petitioner, however, has the burden of showing that all available
state court remedies have been exhausted or that exceptional circumstances exist that
would make exhaustion unnecessary. See Doty v. Lund, 78 F. Supp. 2d 898, 901
(N.D. Iowa 1999).
In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner fails to address the fact that on
September 10, 2019, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded Petitioner’s case back
to the Wayne County Circuit Court to address Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. The Michigan Supreme Court, in a fairly lengthy order, directed
the trial court to determine whether Petitioner’s amended motion for relief from
judgment that was filed on May 24, 2016 constitutes a successive motion for relief
from judgment within the meaning of Chapter 6. M.C.R. 6.502(G). If the trial judge
determines that it is not a successive motion, the judge has been directed to decide
the motion under the standard for granting or denying post-conviction relief found
in Chapter 6. M.C.R. 6.508. If the judge determines that this motion is successive,
the judge may deny relief pursuant to Chapter 6. M.C.R. 6.502(G). The judge was
ordered to “issue an opinion setting forth its analysis.” In re Jackson, 932 N.W.2d
622 (Mich. 2019). The Michigan Supreme Court has thus ordered the trial judge to
adjudicate petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and possibly adjudicate anew
some of the claims raised by Petitioner in his amended motion for relief from
judgment.
This Court held the case in abeyance to give Petitioner an opportunity to
properly exhaust his claims on state post-conviction review. This Court noted that
a habeas petition is considered unexhausted when a state post-conviction motion
remains pending in the state courts. The Court also found that Petitioner would have
the opportunity to appeal any denial of the post-conviction motion to the state
appellate courts. Jackson v. Parish, 2019 WL 4573799, at * 3. This Court noted
that “a federal court cannot consider granting habeas relief ‘if there still is a potential
state remedy for the state courts to consider.’” Id. (quoting Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.
3d 410, 415 (6th Cir. 2009)).
Although Petitioner claims that it would be futile to exhaust his remedies in
state court at this point, the Michigan Supreme Court has remanded the case to the
trial court judge for her to consider Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and
possibly adjudicate the remaining claims that Petitioner raised in his amended
motion for relief from judgment. Any failure by Petitioner to pursue his claims in
state court on remand would disqualify “his case from consideration under the
narrow exception [to the exhaustion requirement].” See Dillon v. Hutchinson, 82 F.
App’x. 459, 462 (6th Cir. 2003). In addition, the “futility to object” exception to the
exhaustion requirement is not satisfied by a habeas petitioner’s expectation that a
state court will rule against him or her. See United States ex. rel. Centanni v.
Washington, 951 F. Supp. 1355, 1365 (N.D. Ill. 1997); see also Porter v. White, No.
2001 WL 902612, * 2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 6, 2001). Moreover, a habeas petitioner’s
conclusory allegation that the state courts are biased is insufficient to establish
futility to excuse the petitioner from exhausting his or her state court remedies. See,
e.g., Crank v. Jenks, 224 F. App’x. 838, 839 (10th Cir. 2007). In determining
whether the futility exception to the exhaustion requirement applies, the “pertinent
question” is not whether the state court would be inclined to rule in the habeas
petitioner’s favor, but whether there is any available state procedure for determining
the merits of petitioner’s claim. Spreitzer v. Schomig, 219 F. 3d 639, 647 (7th Cir.
2000) (quoting White v. Peters, 990 F. 2d 338, 342 (7th Cir. 1993)).
Finally, even if it would be futile for Petitioner to exhaust his additional
claims, this Court also noted that it would be premature to adjudicate Petitioner’s
claims on the merits at this point.
Many of the claims are currently being
reconsidered on remand in the state trial court and might possibly lead to Petitioner
obtaining relief in the state courts on one of those claims, thus mooting his current
petition. Jackson v. Parish, 2019 WL 4573799, at * 3-4.
The Court will deny Petitioner’s motion because he is merely presenting
issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication, when the Court held the petition in abeyance and administratively
closed the case. Whitehouse Condo. Grp., LLC, 959 F. Supp. 2d at 1031.
The Motion for Reconsideration [#87] is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 5, 2019
s/Gershwin A. Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys
of record on this date, November 5, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Teresa McGovern
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?