Ryan v. Smith
Filing
94
OPINION and ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S 93 MOTION to Reopen Case Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AFla)
Case 4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM ECF No. 94, PageID.1492 Filed 08/30/21 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SEAN MICHAEL RYAN,
Petitioner,
Case No. 14-11611
v.
Honorable Linda V. Parker
WILLIAM SMITH,
Respondent.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
REOPEN HABEAS CORPUS PETITION (ECF NO. 93)
Michigan prisoner Sean Michael Ryan (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se habeas
corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state court convictions for
seven counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Michigan
Compiled Laws Section 750.520b(1)(a) (penetration of a person under thirteen
years of age). On May 16, 2017, this Court issued an opinion and order
concluding that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief and declining to issue
Petitioner a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 80.) Petitioner’s attempt to
appeal the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was unsuccessful when
that court also denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 85.) The
United States Supreme Court denied his petition for the writ of certiorari on June
11, 2018. (ECF No. 90.) Petitioner has tried, unsuccessfully, to resurrect his
Case 4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM ECF No. 94, PageID.1493 Filed 08/30/21 Page 2 of 3
habeas petition (see ECF No. 92), and now asks this Court to reopen the petition to
reargue his Fourth Amendment and ineffective assistance of counsel claims
“[b]ecause [t]he ruling that this honorable court made the first time were contrary
to the rule of stare decisis and was also contrary to the clearly established law of
the United States Supreme Court” (ECF No. 93).
Neither the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals nor the United States Supreme
Court agree with Petitioner’s assessment of this Court’s May 16, 2017 decision.
Petitioner has exhausted the avenues available to challenge that decision and the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 prevents him from pursuing
an amended or second petition here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
For those reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to reopen his habeas petition is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these habeas proceedings are closed and
Petitioner shall file no additional motions under this case number.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 30, 2021
Case 4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM ECF No. 94, PageID.1494 Filed 08/30/21 Page 3 of 3
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, August 30, 2021, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan
Case Manager
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?