Norman v. Cheeks

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S 15 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 16 MOTION FOR CLARITY OR CORRECTION Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AFla)

Case 2:21-cv-11357-LVP-KGA ECF No. 17, PageID.480 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARVILLE NORMAN,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:21-cv-11357
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
CHANDLER CHEEKS,
Respondent.
__________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF NO. 15) AND MOTION FOR
CLARITY OR CORRECTION (ECF NO. 16)
On June 7, 2021, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for the writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a prison misconduct conviction
he received from the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”).
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it failed to
state a claim upon which habeas relief can be granted, which this Court granted in
an Opinion and Order entered January 12, 2022. (ECF No. 13.) The matter is
presently before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel
(ECF No. 15) and his Motion for Clarity or Correction (ECF No. 16).
The Court begins with Petitioner’s Motion for Clarity or Correction, which
the Court construes as a motion to amend or for relief from judgment pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), respectively. In the motion,

Case 2:21-cv-11357-LVP-KGA ECF No. 17, PageID.481 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 3

Petitioner maintains that his MDOC conviction caused him to lose earned
disciplinary credit days and that this has impacted the length of his sentence.
Petitioner maintains that this infringed his liberty interests.
As the Court explained in its January 12 decision, however, a Michigan
prisoner serving a sentence for a crime committed on or after April 1, 1987, such
as Plaintiff, earns “disciplinary credits” rather than “good time credits” and has no
constitutionally protected liberty interest associated with the loss of disciplinary
credits. (See ECF No. 13 at Pg ID 460 (citing Nali v. Ekman, 355 F. App’x 909,
912 (6th Cir. 2009).) Petitioner therefore fails to show the need for a correction of
the Court’s prior decision. He does not appear to be asking the Court to clarify
anything in the decision.
Because Petitioner’s application for the writ of habeas corpus was properly
dismissed without prejudice and, therefore a judgment was entered closing this
matter, there is no reason to appoint counsel to represent Petitioner in this action.
For these reasons, the Court is denying Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment
of Counsel (ECF No. 15) and Motion for Clarity or Correction (ECF No. 16). The
Court also is denying Petitioner a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal
this decision in forma pauperis. Reasonable jurists could not debate whether, or
agree that, the motions should have been resolved differently, or that the issues
presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Slack v.
2

Case 2:21-cv-11357-LVP-KGA ECF No. 17, PageID.482 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 3

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). An appeal could not be taken in good
faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 19, 2022

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, September 19, 2022, by electronic
and/or U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan
Case Manager

3