Castorena v. Brewer

Filing 13

ORDER Denying Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Appealability 10 and Denying Petitioner's Motion for Pauper Status 11 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARYANN LEAL CASTORENA,
Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-13301
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATTI

v.
SHAWN BREWER,
Respondent.
_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY [10] AND DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PAUPER STATUS [11]
I. INTRODUCTION
On October 9, 2017, petitioner Maryann Leal Castorena filed a habeas corpus
petition challenging her convictions for first-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.316(1)(a), conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder, Mich.
Comp. Laws §§ 750.157a and 750.316(1)(a), solicitation of first degree premeditated
murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157b(2), and lying to a peace officer, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.479c(2)(d). Her sole ground for relief was that propensity
evidence regarding a prior conspiracy to commit arson was wrongfully admitted at
her trial.
On June 29, 2018, the Court denied the habeas petition because Petitioner’s
claim was not cognizable on habeas review and because the state appellate court’s

adjudication of her claim was not contrary to Supreme Court precedent or an
unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. In the same opinion and
order, the Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Petitioner appealed the Court’s judgment on July 25, 2018. Currently before
this Court are Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability and her motion
for pauper status, both of which were filed on August 2, 2018.
II. DISCUSSION
Petitioner’s motion for pauper status (Docket No. 11) is denied as moot
because Petitioner paid the appellate filing fee in full after she filed her motion for
pauper status. See Docket No. 12. Petitioner’s application for a certificate of
appealability also is moot because the Court declined to issue a certificate of
appealability in its dispositive opinion. See Docket No. 6.
To the extent Petitioner is seeking reconsideration of the denial of a certificate
of appealability, the request is late under Local Rule 7.1(h)(1), because Petitioner
filed it more than fourteen days after entry of the Court’s judgment. Even if the
request were deemed timely, Petitioner merely raises the same evidentiary issue that
the Court has already ruled upon. The Court may not grant “motions for rehearing
or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication.” Local Rule 7.1(h)(3).

2 

Petitioner attempts to justify her failure to file a supporting brief with her
habeas petition by asserting that there was a substantial lack of communication
between her and her habeas attorney. But “there is no constitutional right to counsel
in habeas proceedings” and no right to relief “for ineffective or incompetent
representation in post-conviction collateral review.” Post v. Bradshaw, 422 F.3d
419, 425 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Barraza v. Cockrell, 330 F.3d 349, 352 (5th Cir.
2003) (noting that “there is no constitutional right to competent habeas counsel”).
III. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has failed to show that the Court made a palpable defect in its prior
decision and that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the
case. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3); Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011).
Petitioner also has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and reasonable jurists could not disagree with the
Court’s resolution of her claim or conclude that her claim deserves encouragement
to proceed further, Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The Court,
therefore, denies Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability and
implied request for reconsideration, Docket No. 10. The Court denies as moot
Petitioner’s motion for pauper status, Docket No. 11.

Dated: September 11, 2018

s/Denise Page Hood
  Chief Judge U.S. District Court 

3 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
September 11, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4