Wunderlich v. People of the State of Michigan

Filing 3

OPINION and ORDER Summarily Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice. IT IS ORDERED, that the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal in forma pauperis are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (McColley, N)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALAN WUNDERLICH,
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:20-cv-11522
Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow

v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN,
Respondent.
_____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Alan Wunderlich initiated this proceeding by filing a “Motion for
Discovery.” ECF No. 1. Because it appears Petitioner seeks release from his
involuntary commitment at a group home, the Court will construe the pleading as a
petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. §2254.
Petitioner was charged in Genesee County in 2016 with several offenses
arising out of a confrontation with the police. ECF No. 1, Page.ID.3-4, 6-8. The
charges were dismissed after Petitioner was found incompetent to stand trial. Id.,
Page.ID.10-11. Petitioner was thereafter civilly committed, and he is currently
residing at a group home in Linden, Michigan. Id., Page.ID.2.
Though the quality of the pro se petition makes it difficult to discern exactly
what Petitioner is claiming, it appears Petitioner asserts that: (1) the police violated

Wunderlich v. People, No. 20-11522

his Fourth Amendment rights during his initial arrest, and (2) Petitioner is being
“held prisoner” yet charged monthly rent for his involuntary civil commitment.
Petitioner states that he is seeking copies of the police report and other records so
that he can file criminal charges against state employees. Nevertheless, the Court
will construe the action as ultimately seeking release from custody in light of
Petitioner’s claim that he is illegally “being held prisoner.” Id. Page.ID.1.
After a petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed, the Court undertakes
preliminary review to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in
the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. If the Court determines
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must summarily dismiss the
petition. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Rule 4, Rules Governing §
2254 Cases.
Petitioner may challenge the constitutionality of his civil commitment under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Williams v. Meyer, 346 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2003). But a
federal habeas petitioner must exhaust remedies available in the state courts before
filing his federal petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S.
838, 842 (1999). Exhaustion requires a petitioner to “fairly present” federal claims
so that state courts have a “fair opportunity” to apply controlling legal principles to
the facts bearing upon a petitioner’s constitutional claim. Id. The district court can
2 

Wunderlich v. People, No. 20-11522

raise exhaustion on its own when it clearly appears that habeas claims have not
been presented to the state courts. See Prather v. Rees, 822 F.2d 1418, 1422 (6th
Cir. 1987).
Here, Petitioner does not assert that he attempted to obtain relief in the state
courts with respect to his involuntary civil commitment. Under Michigan law,
proceedings regarding involuntary mental health treatment under the Mental
Health Code, including proceedings instituted following a determination of
incompetency to stand trial, are referred to as “civil commitment” proceedings.
See, e.g., People v. Dobben, 440 Mich. 679, 690-691 (1992); People v. Miller, 440
Mich. 631, 640 (1992). The specific procedures for obtaining continuing orders for
treatment based on a person’s mental illness, as well as the procedures for judicial
review of such orders, are contained in Chapter 4 of the Mental Health Code,
Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1400 et seq and Michigan Court Rule 5.730 et seq. See
People v. Portus (In re Portus), 325 Mich. App. 374 (2018). These provisions
allow for a civilly committed person to petition for his release in the state probate
court, Rule 5.747, and for appellate review of an order denying release. Rule
5.801(A)(4). Petitioner does not allege that he attempted to avail himself of these
state procedures.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice because
Petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies.
3 

Wunderlich v. People, No. 20-11522

IT IS ORDERED, that the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a certificate of appealability and
permission to appeal in forma pauperis are DENIED. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(3);
2253(c)(2).

_s/Arthur J. Tarnow________
Arthur J. Tarnow
United States District Court
Dated: _July 10, 2020___

4