Daniels v. Rapelje

Filing 97

OPINION AND ORDER denying 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 docket entries, transferring 89 , 90 and 93 Motions to the USCA for the Sixth Circuit and enjoining petitioner from filing further motions and documents in the case without leave of the Court. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SEAN DANIELS,
Petitioner,

Case Number: 11-12199
Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith

v.
DUNCAN MACLAREN,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
(1) DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FILED AS DOCKET ENTRIES 85–88
AND 96; (2) TRANSFERRING DOCKET ENTRIES 89, 90, AND 93 TO THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; AND (3) ENJOINING PETITIONER
FROM FILING FURTHER MOTIONS AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS CASE
WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT
This matter is before the Court on eight post-judgment motions filed by Sean
Daniels (Petitioner), a Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se. For the reasons set forth
below, five of Petitioner’s motions are denied (Dkts. 85–88, 96), three of Petitioner’s
motions are transferred to the Court of Appeals (Dkts. 89, 90, 93), and Petitioner is enjoined
from filing further motions and documents in this case without leave of Court.
I.

BACKGROUND

In 2008, a jury convicted Petitioner of first-degree premeditated murder, assault
with intent to commit murder, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony. See People v. Daniels, No. 287769, 2010 WL 571841, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb.
18, 2010). In 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (Dkt. 1). The Court later granted Petitioner’s motion to hold the petition in

abeyance while he presented unexhausted claims in the state court. Op. & Order Holding
Pet. in Abeyance (Dkt. 17). In 2014, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to reopen the
case. Op. & Order Granting Mot. to Reopen (Dkt. 27). On March 13, 2018, the Court
denied the petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Op. & Order Den.
Pet. and Den. Certificate of Appealability (Dkt. 46). The United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit also denied a certificate of appealability. Daniels v. Jackson, No. 181342, 2018 WL 4621942 (6th Cir. July 17, 2018).
In 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(d)(3). He argued that the prosecutor’s office and Wayne County
medical examiner’s office perpetrated a fraud upon the court by concealing various medical
records and autopsy photos of the victim. Mot. for Relief from J. at PageID.1959–1960
(Dkt. 56). The Court held that Petitioner’s unsupported, conclusory allegations were
patently insufficient to show a fraud upon the court. Order Den. Mot. for Relief from
Judgment at PageID.2018 (Dkt.59). The Court denied the motion for relief from judgment,
declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied Petitioner’s motions for
appointment of counsel, post-judgment discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and release from
custody. See id. The Sixth Circuit also denied a certificate of appealability. Daniels v.
Jackson, No. 20-2090, 2021 WL 1923060 (6th Cir. Mar. 9, 2021).
In 2022, Petitioner filed a second motion for relief from judgment (Dkt. 67). The
second motion was essentially identical to Petitioner’s first motion for relief from
judgment. The Court held that Petitioner’s attempt to relitigate issues already decided was
barred by the law of the case doctrine and denied the motion. Order Den. Mot. for Relief
2

from J. (Dkt. 91). The Court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability from the
denial of Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment. See id. The Court also denied
multiple miscellaneous motions seeking various discovery. See id.
II.

ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Hold All Pending Motions in Abeyance (Dkt. 96)
On March 1, 2024, Petitioner filed an emergency motion to hold all pending motions
in abeyance. He states that, on July 3, 2023, the Michigan Court of Appeals vacated the
Wayne County Circuit Court’s September 27, 2022 order denying his successive motion
for relief from judgment. See People v. Daniels, No. 364929 (Mich. Ct. App. July 3, 2023),
Mot. to Hold Mots. in Abeyance at PageID.2509 (Dkt. 96). The court of appeals held that
the decision was based on multiple legal errors: (1) the trial court applied the wrong test to
determine whether the successive motion was procedurally barred under Michigan Court
Rule 6.502(G)(2); (2) the trial court incorrectly held that “newly available evidence is
categorically insufficient to warrant the grant of a new trial”; and (3) the trial court relied
on overruled precedent. Id. The court of appeals remanded the matter to the circuit court
for consideration under the appropriate legal framework. Id.
Review of the trial court’s publicly available docket suggests that the trial court has
not yet issued a decision on remand. Petitioner maintains that the Court should hold his
pending motions in abeyance until the trial court decides his motion for relief from
judgment. The Court recognizes “the State’s strong interest in enforcing its criminal
judgments without undue interference from the federal courts,” Hill v. McDonough, 547
U.S. 573, 584 (2006), but finds it unnecessary to hold Petitioner’s motions in abeyance
3

until the state court issues a decision. The questions at issue in Petitioner’s motions are
distinct from the questions before the state court. The state court proceedings concern the
application of state court rules governing the filing of a successive motion for relief from
judgment and newly discovered evidence not before this Court.1 Therefore, there is no
reason to hold the motions in abeyance.
B. Motion to Supplement Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Dkt. 85)
Petitioner asks the Court to order Detroit Receiving Hospital to produce a complete
copy of the victim’s medical records. A habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery as a
matter of course, but only upon a fact specific showing of good cause and in the Court’s
exercise of discretion. See Rule 6(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. The Court finds no
basis for granting discovery in this long-closed habeas corpus proceeding and denies
Petitioner’s motion.
C. Motion to Amend and Alter Judgment (Dkt. 86), Motion to Amend Motion to
Amend (Dkt. 87), and Amended Motion to Amend and Alter Judgment (Dkt.
88)
Approximately five years after the Court denied the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, Petitioner filed a motion to amend and alter judgment under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 15(c) and 59(e). He asks the Court to alter or amend its decision denying his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

1

Petitioner clearly states that the newly discovered evidence at issue in state court is not the same
newly discovered evidence he has presented in this Court. See Mot. to Hold Mots. in Abeyance
at PageID.2506 (Dkt. 96).

4

Motions under Rule 59(e) must be filed within twenty-eight days of judgment, a
time limit district courts are without authority to extend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2).
Judgment was entered in this case on March 13, 2018. See Dkt. 47. Petitioner’s motion
therefore was filed well beyond the 28-day period and is untimely.
Petitioner also filed a motion to amend the motion to amend (Dkt. 87) and an
amended motion to amend and alter judgment (Dkt. 88). The Court will deny the motion
to amend (Dkt. 87) because it would be futile given that Petitioner’s Rule 59(e) motion is
untimely. See Wiedbrauk v. Lavigne, 174 F. App’x 993, 1001–1002 (6th Cir. 2006)
(finding it futile to permit petitioner to amend his petition to add a time-barred claim).
Additionally, if the Court granted Petitioner leave to amend and considered the amended
Rule 59(e) motion, the result would be the same. The amended motion is untimely because,
even though it also challenges a later judgment—the September 28, 2020 judgment
denying Petitioner’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion—it was still filed over two years late.
D.

Motion to Amend Motion for Relief from Judgment (Dkt. 89), Amended
Motion for Relief from Judgment (Dkt. 90), and Motion for
Reconsideration (Dkt. 93)
Next, Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to amend his motion for relief from

judgment (Dkt. 89), an amended motion for relief from judgment (Dkt. 90), and a motion
for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c), 59(e), 60(b)(2), 60(b)(3),
and 60(b)(6) (Dkt. 93). Petitioner again argues that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the
court because certain medical records were withheld. Am. Mot. for Relief from J. at
PageID.2371–2380 (Dkt. 90). Petitioner’s previous motions asserted only vague and
conclusory allegations of fraud and, therefore, were not considered successive petitions by
5

this Court or the Court of Appeals. In contrast, the instant motions cite newly discovered
medical records regarding the victim’s emergency room treatment. Specifically, Petitioner
cites treating physician Dr. Susie Flink’s observation that the victim presented with “a
single puncture type wound in the upper aspect of the mid forehead … [and] 2 puncture
type wounds in the upper back.” Id. at PageID.2388. Petitioner contends that Dr. Flink’s
characterization of the wounds conflicts with evidence presented at trial that the victim
suffered from a gunshot wound to the forehead and two to the back. Id. at PageID.2373.
Petitioner raises new evidence that was not raised in his initial habeas petition. A
motion for relief from judgment that seeks to present “new evidence in support of a claim
already litigated” is a “second or successive habeas petition,” which requires authorization
from the federal appellate court before filing pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b). Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005). These pleadings, therefore,
constitute a second or successive habeas petition, which requires appellate authorization
before filing. See Tyler v. Anderson, 749 F.3d 499, 506–507 (6th Cir. 2014) (discussing
when a post-judgment motion constitutes a second or successive petition).
Petitioner has not obtained appellate authorization to file a second or successive
habeas petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Consequently, his motion to
amend motion for relief from judgment (Dkt. 89), amended motion for relief from
judgment (Dkt. 90), and motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 93), must be transferred to the
Sixth Circuit for consideration under § 2244(b)(3)(A). See Moreland v. Robinson, 813
F.3d 315, 325 (6th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the Court will order the Clerk of the Court to
transfer this case to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (authorizing transfer of
6

cases) and In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[W]hen a second or successive
petition for habeas corpus relief ... is filed in the district court without § 2244(b)(3)
authorization from this court, the district court shall transfer the document to this court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631”).
E.

Injunction Prohibiting Further Filing in this Case Without Leave of Court
The Court has the authority to enjoin vexatious litigants from filing future pleadings

without first obtaining court approval to do so. See Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141
F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998) (“There is nothing unusual about imposing prefiling
restrictions in matters with a history of repetitive or vexatious litigation.”); Wrenn v.
Vanderbilt Univ. Hosp., No. 94-5453, 1995 WL 111480, at *3, (6th Cir. 1995) (“This court
has the authority to enjoin harassing litigation under its inherent authority and the All Writs
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a).”). Given the high volume and repetitive and frivolous nature of
Petitioner’s filings, the Court will enjoin Petitioner from filing any new documents in this
case without first obtaining leave of this Court by filing a motion for leave. The motion
for leave must be captioned “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File”
and must contain a copy of this opinion and order. Failure to strictly comply with these
terms will be sufficient grounds for summarily denying leave to file. See Sassower v.
Thompson, Hine & Flory, 986 F.2d 1422 (6th Cir. 1993).
III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion to supplement (Dkt. 85), motion
to amend and alter judgment (Dkt. 86), motion to amend motion to amend (Dkt. 87),

7

amended motion to amend and alter judgment (Dkt. 88), and emergency motion to hold
motions in abeyance (Dkt. 96).
The Court orders the Clerk of Court to transfer Petitioner’s motion to amend (Dkt.
89), amended motion (Dkt. 90), and motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 93), to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Court enjoins Petitioner from filing any additional motions or other papers in
this case without leave of Court.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2024
Detroit, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

8