Thompson v. Sixth Judicial Circuit et al

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER Dismissing the Habeas Corpus Petition, DECLINING to Issue a Certificate of Appealability, and DENYING Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on Appeal. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EDWARD THOMPSON,
Petitioner,
Case No. 18-cv-11790
Hon. Terrence G. Berg

v.
SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT and
OAKLAND COUNTY FRIEND
OF THE COURT,
Respondents.
_______________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE HABEAS CORPUS
PETITION, DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Petitioner Edward Thompson of Plano, Texas has filed a pro se
habeas corpus petition, challenging a state-court default judgment of
divorce and child-custody order. Exhibits to the petition indicate that
Petitioner filed a complaint for divorce from his wife in 2015. On July
11, 2016, an Oakland County Circuit Court judge held a bench trial on
the complaint. Because Petitioner did not appear at the trial, the court
entered a default against him and continued the trial without him.

On July 13, 2016, Petitioner moved to enforce his and his wife’s
alleged settlement agreement and to have the state court adopt the
recommendations of the Friend of the Court concerning custody and
support. He subsequently re-filed his motion to enforce the parties’
settlement. He argued at a hearing on his motions that his attorney
had not informed him of the correct trial date. On July 20, 2016, the
trial court declined to set aside the default, but granted Petitioner’s
motion to adopt the recommendation of the Friend of the Court.
Petitioner’s wife subsequently asked the trial court to enter a
default judgment of divorce. On August 1, 2016, Petitioner moved to set
aside the default and to enforce the parties’ settlement. On August 10,
2016, the trial judge held a hearing on Petitioner’s motion and denied it.
The court then entered a final default judgment of divorce and childsupport order against Petitioner. See Pet., Dkt. 1, Pg. ID 16-26.
Petitioner appealed the default judgment of divorce, but on March 21,
2017, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
See Thompson v. Thompson, No. 334568 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2017);
Pet., Dkt. 1, Pg. ID 27-33.
2

On June 5, 2018, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claims to be suffering from a restraint on his
liberty due to the state court’s judgment of divorce, which, in his
opinion, is void because it is arbitrary and was entered in violation of
his right to due process. Petitioner also claims that child-support
statutes are bills of attainder, which punish non-custodial parents by
depriving them of rights and property without a trial by jury. He seeks
to be free from an unlawful financial obligation that may cause him to
be arrested for contempt of court due to his inability to pay the financial
obligation.
II. ANALYSIS
The procedural rules governing federal habeas corpus petitions
filed by state prisoners require the Court to promptly examine a habeas
petition, and if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must
dismiss the petition. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts; Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S.
198, 207 (2006). A threshold question here is whether Petitioner is “in
3

custody,” because a federal district court may “entertain an application
for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to
the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) and § 2254(a)(emphasis added); see also Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding that a writ of habeas
corpus is the appropriate federal remedy when a state prisoner is
challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment and
the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate
release or a speedier release from that imprisonment).
Petitioner does not appear to be in custody in a jail or prison.1 In
fact, he urges the Court to recognize his right to challenge non-bodily
restraint of liberty. Pet. at 3, Dkt. 1, Pg. ID 3. The Court acknowledges
that “the term ‘custody’ is not limited solely to physical confinement.”
Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 269 (6th Cir. 1984). Nevertheless, a civil
judgment requiring a person to pay child support does not constitute

  His address is 5760 Legacy Dr. B-3, Plano, Texas 75024. 

1

4

“custody” for purposes of the habeas statutes. Id. The Court, therefore,
lacks jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus relief. Id.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the petition for writ
of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1) is DENIED, and this case is summarily
DISMISSED with prejudice.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is
DENIED, and Petitioner is DENIED leave to appeal in forma
pauperis.
SO ORDERED.
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 27, 2018
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on
August 27, 2018, using the CM/ECF system, which will send
notification to each party.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

5