Dennis v. Burt

Filing 4

OPINION and ORDER (1) Dismissing as Duplicative the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (2) Declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability, and (3) Denying Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

Case 2:20-cv-11545-LVP-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/08/20

PageID.76

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM DENNIS,
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:20-CV-11545
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
SHERRY BURT,
Respondent.
__________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER: (1) DISMISSING AS DUPLICATIVE THE
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (2) DECLINING TO
ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND (3) DENYING
LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
William Dennis (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his pro se application, Petitioner challenged his
conviction for two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp.
Laws § 750.520b(1)(b), and one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct,
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520d(1). The matter was assigned to the Honorable Sean
F. Cox, who denied the petition with prejudice because it was filed outside the oneyear limitations period applicable to habeas corpus petitions. Dennis v. Burt, No.
2:18-cv-12197, 2019 WL 4439814 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 16, 2019), appeal dismissed
No. 19-2196 (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 2020).
1

Case 2:20-cv-11545-LVP-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/08/20

PageID.77

Page 2 of 4

On April 24, 2020, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ad Testificandum and a Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which was assigned to the undersigned. (ECF
No. 1.) These filings were docketed together as a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. In his motion for relief from judgment, Petitioner challenges the denial of
his earlier habeas corpus petition as untimely. Petitioner asks the Court to order
the warden to produce him to testify regarding his Rule 60(b) motion. Petitioner
claims he is entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period because he
retained an attorney to file a habeas petition on his behalf, but the attorney failed to
do so.
Petitioner previously filed an identical petition and motion, asserting the
same arguments. The judge in that case ordered the petition and motion re-filed in
the initial habeas proceedings and dismissed the action without prejudice. Dennis
v. Burt, No. 20-cv-11156 (E.D. Mich. June 19, 2020). The petition and motion
were then refiled in Case No. 2:18-cv-12197 and remain pending before Judge
Cox. See Dennis v. Burt, No. 2:18-cv-12197 (E.D. Mich.), ECF No. 28.
Petitioner’s current habeas petition and accompanying motion are subject to
dismissal because they seek the same relief as his earlier petitions and are therefore
duplicative. See Davis v. U.S. Parole Com’n, No. 88-5905, 1989 WL 25837, at *1
2

Case 2:20-cv-11545-LVP-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/08/20

PageID.78

Page 3 of 4

(6th Cir. Mar. 7, 1989) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a duplicative
habeas petition, as the petition was essentially the same as an earlier-filed petition);
see also Warren v. Booker, No. 06-cv-14462-DT, 2006 WL 3104696, at *1 (E.D.
Mich. Oct. 31, 2006) (same). Accordingly, the Court is dismissing this action
without prejudice.
The Court also is denying Petitioner a certificate of appealability. In order
to obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner must make a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a district
court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the
underlying constitutional claims, a certificate of appealability should issue, and an
appeal of the district court’s order may be taken, if the petitioner shows 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. Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that
Petitioner’s petition and motion are duplicative of previous filings and therefore
subject to dismissal. The Court is also denying Petitioner leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, because an appeal would be frivolous. See Allen v. Stovall, 156 F. Supp.
2d 791, 798 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
3

Case 2:20-cv-11545-LVP-EAS ECF No. 4 filed 07/08/20

PageID.79

Page 4 of 4

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition and motion are DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is denied a certificate of
appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 8, 2020

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, July 8, 2020, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.

s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

4