Sykes v. People of the State of Michigan

Filing 7

OPINION and ORDER (1) Denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (2) Denying Certificate of Appealability and (3) Denying Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEMONTEZ ANTONIO SYKES,
Petitioner,

Case No. 17-cv-13649
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, (2) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; AND
(3) DENYING PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Demontez Antonio Sykes (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner in the custody of the
Michigan Department of Corrections. He has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus challenging his present incarceration. The Court concludes that the petition is
frivolous and Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, for the
reasons stated below, the Petition is DENIED. The Court also DENIES Petitioner a
certificate of appealability and DENIES permission to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal.
Petitioner pleaded no contest in Oakland County Circuit Court to three counts
of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(a), and is
serving three concurrent terms of 11 years, 4 months to 30 years’ imprisonment.

Petitioner states that the petition arises out of an Admiralty and Maritime Claim. (See
ECF #1). Petitioner identifies himself as “Demontez-Antonio Sykes, Trustee/Secured
Party/ Bailee of the DEMONTEZ ANTONIO SYKES TRUST (C).” (Id.). The
petition is rambling and difficult to understand, but the gist of Petitioner’s arguments
is that his “living, breathing, flesh-and-blood” self has been placed into a trust (the
DEMONTEZ ANTONIO SYKES TRUST (C)) and that this “trust” is a “vessel in
commerce.” (Id.). The petition purports to enforce a Maritime Lien requiring the
release of the “property” of the trust, that is, the “flesh-and-blood” Petitioner, to
satisfy a debt. (Id.).
Federal courts may dismiss a habeas corpus petition that is legally insufficient
on its face. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Rule 4, Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner’s contentions that he can avoid serving a term of
imprisonment by establishing a trust, labeling himself a vessel in commerce, and
invoking civil commercial statutes or admiralty jurisdiction are frivolous. Accord
Dickinson v. Granade, No. 1:16-cv-0153, 2016 WL 3647181, *11 (S.D. Ala. June 1,
2016) (“[I]t is readily apparent that a criminal judgment cannot be the ‘res’ of a trust
intended to benefit the very person (plaintiff) whose misconduct resulted in
imposition of the criminal judgment.”); Figueroa Hernandez v. Figueroa Hernandez,
No. 7:08-cv-0498, 2008 WL 4533940, *3 (W.D. Va. Oct. 7, 2008) (“The court simply
finds no ground upon which an inmate may use civil commercial statutes or admiralty
jurisdiction to challenge the fact or length of his confinement.”).
2

The Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Petition.
Before Petitioner may appeal the Court’s decision, a certificate of appealability
must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of
appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a court denies relief
on the merits, the substantial showing threshold is met if the petitioner demonstrates
that reasonable jurists would find the court’s assessment of the claim debatable or
wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). “A petitioner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that ... jurists could conclude the issues presented are
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists could
conclude the issues presented here are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court
DENIES leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal as an appeal could not be taken
in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
/s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 23, 2018

3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on January 23, 2018, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4