Lincoln v. Palmer

Filing 5

ORDER (1) Dismissing 3 Order to Show Cause, (2) Denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (3) Denying a Certificate of Appealability, and (4) Denying Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SCOTT R. LINCOLN,
Petitioner,

Case No. 16-cv-13577
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CARMEN D. PALMER,
Respondent.
____________________________________/
ORDER (1) DISMISSING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF #3), (2)
DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF #1), (3)
DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND (4) DENYING
LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Petitioner Scott Robert Lincoln (“Lincoln”) is a state prisoner currently
confined at the Michigan Reformatory in Ionia, Michigan. On January 4, 2016,
Lincoln pleaded guilty in the Oakland County Circuit Court to the charges of
operating while impaired, (OWI) third offense, Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625, and
driving with a suspended license, second offense, Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.904.
(See ECF #1 at 1, 18, Pg. ID 1, 18.) Lincoln was also subject to a sentencing
enhancement for being a fourth felony habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 769.12. (See id.)

The state trial court sentenced Lincoln to a term of

imprisonment of 36 months to 20 years. (See id.)
1

On October 7, 2016, Lincoln filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). (See ECF #1.) In the Petition,
Lincoln contends that the state trial court erroneously failed to give him credit for 68
days that he spent in custody before his sentencing. (See id. at 2, Pg. ID 2.)
On October 19, 2016, the Court ordered Lincoln to show cause in writing why
it should not summarily dismiss the Petition (the “Show Cause Order”). (ECF #3.)
Specifically, the Court ordered Lincoln to explain why his claim was not barred by
the rule that “[a] state court’s alleged misinterpretation of state sentencing guidelines
and crediting statutes is a matter of state concern only.” Howard v. White, 76 Fed.
App’x 52, 52-53 (6th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added). See also Travis, 925 F.2d at 1097
(“Because application of presentence jail time to a subsequent sentence is a
legislative grace and not a constitutional guarantee, the interpretation of state
crediting statutes is a matter of state concern and not a proper function of a federal
court under its habeas corpus jurisdiction”).
Lincoln responded to the Show Cause Order on November 14, 2016. (See
ECF #4.) In his response, Lincoln argues that the rule articulated in Howard and
Travis does not apply here because he is actually claiming that the state trial court
violated his federal constitutional rights. Lincoln says that the state trial judge
violated his rights under the Due Process Clause when the judge “arbitrar[ly]”
2

refused to credit him for the 68 days he spent in custody prior to his sentencing. (See
Lincoln Resp., ECF #4 at 1, Pg. ID 37.)
No matter the label that Lincoln places on his claim, the gist of the claim is
that the state trial court violated a state sentence-credit statute when it failed to give
him credit for the time he served in custody prior to his sentencing. Lincoln has
failed to persuade the Court that such a claim is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
See Howard and Travis, supra.
And even if Lincoln is presenting a federal claim concerning the denial of
sentencing credit, he would still not be entitled to habeas relief. Lincoln says that
he presented his sentence-credit claim to the Michigan Court of Appeals in an
Application for Leave to Appeal (see Petition at 2, 6, Pg. ID 2, 6), and that court
denied the Application “for lack of merit in the grounds presented.” (Id. at 16, Pg. ID
16.) The decision by the state appellate court was an adjudication on the merits.
See, e.g., Hynes v. Birkett, 526 Fed. App’x 515, 519 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he order of
the Michigan Court of Appeals denying [Petitioner’s] delayed application for leave
to appeal ‘for lack of merit in the grounds presented’ was an adjudication ‘on the
merits' under AEDPA”). Thus, Lincoln is not entitled to relief unless the state
court’s decision was “contrary to” or resulted in an “unreasonable application of”
clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
3

Lincoln has failed to make such a showing here. He has not cited a single
Supreme Court case that addresses the circumstances presented here (or
circumstances resembling this case). He has simply cited (what he claims to be) the
general rule that a state court violates a petitioner’s federal constitutional rights if it
acts in an “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious” fashion. (Show Cause Resp., ECF
#4 at 4, Pg. ID 40.) But he has failed to show that either the state trial court or the
Michigan Court of Appeals acted arbitrarily. Indeed, Lincoln says nothing about
why the state trial court refused to give him credit for his time in custody, nor has he
pointed to any acts or statements by either state court that could evidence arbitrary or
capricious conduct. At most, Lincoln has shown that the state courts made an error
of state law in denying him credit; he has not demonstrated that those courts acted
capriciously in doing so. Accordingly, he has not shown any error under the
constitutional standard that he proposed, and he has certainly not demonstrated that
the state courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Show Cause Order (ECF #3) is
DISMISSED and the Petition (ECF #1) is DENIED.
In order to appeal the Court’s decision, Lincoln must obtain a certificate of
appealability. To obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner must make a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C.
4

§ 2253(c)(2). To demonstrate this denial, an applicant is required to show that
reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a
different manner, or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84
(2000).
Here, jurists of reason would not debate the Court’s conclusion that Lincoln
has not met the standard for a certificate of appealability because his claim is devoid
of merit. The Court will therefore deny a certificate of appealability. The Court will
also deny permission to appeal in forma pauperis because any appeal of this
decision cannot be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 13, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on December 13, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

5