Hicks v. Smith
OPINION and ORDER Dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Duplicative, Directing that Petition be Filed in Prior Case, Denying a Certificate of Appealability, and Denying Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (TMcg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CARLOS LAMONT HICKS,
Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-10947
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CASE AS DUPLICATIVE, DIRECTING
THAT PETITION BE FILED IN PRIOR CASE,
DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND
DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
Prisoner Carlos Hicks has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, contending that he is being held in violation of his constitutional rights. In
his pleadings, he challenges his Wayne County Circuit Court convictions for assault with intent to
commit murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.83, felon in possession of a firearm, id. § 750.224f, and
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, id. § 750.227b, for which he was
respectively sentenced to 20 to 48 years imprisonment, a concurrent term of two to five years
imprisonment, and a consecutive term of two years imprisonment.
The petitioner has already filed a federal habeas action challenging those
convictions and his current incarceration which is pending before another district judge. See
Hicks v. Smith, Case No. 2:13-CV-11708 (E.D. Mich.) (Zatkoff, J.). In that case, the district
judge stayed and administratively closed the case so that the petitioner could exhaust state court
remedies as to his habeas claims.
Accordingly, the instant action must be dismissed as
duplicative and/or successive to his stayed petition. See, e.g., Flowers v. Trombley, 2006 WL
724594, *1 (E.D. Mich. March 17, 2006); Harrington v. Stegall, 2002 WL 373113, *2 (E.D. Mich.
Feb. 28, 2002); see also Davis v. United States Parole Comm’n, 870 F.2d 657, 1989 WL 25837, *1
(6th Cir. March 7, 1989) (district court may dismiss habeas petition as duplicative of pending
habeas petition when second petition is essentially same as first petition). The petitioner’s
pleadings should be submitted in his previously-filed case. The petitioner may not challenge the
same convictions in two different habeas actions.
IT IS ORDERED that this second petition is dismissed and the Court directs the
clerk’s office to re-file the instant petition in Case No. 2:13-CV-11708. The court makes no
determination as to the merits of the petition. This case is closed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability
because reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness of the court’s procedural ruling. Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85 (2000).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is denied leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal as any appeal from this non-prejudicial dismissal would be frivolous and
cannot be take in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
s/Bernard A. Friedman
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 30, 2017
Certificate of Service
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF system to their respective email or First Class U. S. Mail
addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 30, 2017.
s/Teresa A. McGovern
Case Manager Generalist
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?