Heit v. Donnellen
OPINION and ORDER Dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
RICHARD T. HEIT,
Case Number: 2:17-CV-13404
HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Petitioner Richard T. Heit filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting he is being held beyond the expiration of his sentence.
Petitioner is incarcerated at the St. Clair County Intervention and Detention Center
pursuant to a domestic violence conviction. Petitioner has not exhausted his state court
remedies. Therefore, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice.
This is a habeas corpus action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Upon the
filing of a habeas corpus petition, the court must promptly examine the petition to
determine “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 cases.
If the court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall
summarily dismiss the petition. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal
courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally
insufficient on its face”). The Rules Governing Section 2254 cases may be applied at the
discretion of the district court judge to petitions under habeas statutes in addition to §
2254. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
A state prisoner challenging the execution of his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
must exhaust his state court remedies before filing suit in federal court. Greene v.
Tennessee Department of Corrections, 265 F.3d 369, 371-72 (6th Cir. 2001). To exhaust
state court remedies, a claim must be fairly presented “to every level of the state courts in
one full round.” Ambrose v. Romanowski, 621 F. App’x 808, 814 (6th Cir. 2015). See
also Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 418 (6th Cir. 2009) (“For a claim to be reviewable at
the federal level, each claim must be presented at every stage of the state appellate
process.”). A petitioner bears the burden of showing that state court remedies have been
exhausted. Nali v. Phillips, 681 F.3d 837, 852 (6th Cir. 2012).
In this case, Petitioner states that he raised his claim that he is being held beyond
the expiration of his sentence with the St. Clair County Intervention and Detention
Facility, and that his claim was denied. Petition at 2. According to his petition, Petitioner
has not sought relief in any Michigan state court. Petitioner has an available remedy in
state court through which he may exhaust the claims presented in the pending petition. A
Michigan state prisoner challenging his continued incarceration based upon a claim that
his maximum sentence has expired may file a complaint for writ of habeas corpus in the
appropriate state circuit court. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4301 et seq., Mich. Ct. R.
3.303; In re: Callahan, 348 Mich. 77 (Mich. 1957); Baatz v. Rapelje, No. 12-11969, 2012
WL 30000597, *1 (E.D. Mich. July 23, 2012). The denial by the circuit court of a state
habeas corpus complaint may be reviewed by filing an original complaint for a writ of
habeas corpus in the Michigan Court of Appeals. See Triplett v. Deputy Warden, 142
Mich. App. 774, 779-80 (1985). Denial of this petition by the Michigan Court of Appeals
is reviewable by the Michigan Supreme Court by filing an application for leave to appeal.
M.C.R. 7.301 (A)(2); M.C.R. 7.302.
Petitioner has failed to exhaust available state court remedies for his habeas claims
and the petition will be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition for a
writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1).
Before Petitioner may appeal the Court’s decision, a certificate of appealability must
issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability
may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a federal court denies a habeas claim
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 Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness
of the Court’s ruling. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
s/Paul D. Borman
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
Dated: November 8, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each
attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on November 8,
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?