Smith v. Heyns et al

Filing 3

OPINION and ORDER Dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Denying a Certificate of Appealability, and Denying Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on Appeal. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERRICK LEE SMITH, #267009,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 5:13-CV-14988
HONORABLE JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

DANIEL HEYNS, et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY,
AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
Michigan prisoner Derrick Lee Smith (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and other constitutional provisions challenging his
continued confinement. The Michigan Department of Corrections Offender Tracking Information
System (“OTIS”) indicates that Petitioner was convicted of two counts of third-degree criminal
sexual conduct in the Wayne County Circuit Court in 1998 and sentenced to concurrent terms of 6
to 15 years imprisonment. He was subsequently convicted of six counts of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct and two counts of kidnapping in the Wayne County Circuit Court in 2008 and
sentenced to concurrent terms of 22 ½ to 75 years imprisonment. In his current petition, he asserts
that the State of Michigan fraudulently forced citizenship upon him in order to acquire jurisdiction
over him so that he could be prosecuted for various criminal offenses. He also challenges the
conditions of his confinement, claiming that he is being denied access to certain publications which
he believes he needs to challenge his convictions.
Petitioner, however, has already filed an identical habeas petition challenging his state
criminal convictions and raising the same claims, which was transferred in part to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as a second or successive petition, dismissed in part as
duplicative to Case No. 10-CV-11052, and dismissed without prejudice (as to the civil rights
claims). See Smith v. Heyns, et al., No. 13-CV-14013 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 24, 2013) (Cleland, J.).
Petitioner’s current claims were thus previously raised and addressed in that prior petition and may
not be re-litigated under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion. See, e.g., Federated Dep’t.
Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981); Mitchell v. Chapman, 343 F.3d 811, 819 (6th Cir. 2003);
see also Butts v. Wilkinson, 145 F.3d 1330, 1998 WL 152778, *1 (6th Cir. 1998) (unpublished)
(upholding summary dismissal of prisoner civil rights complaint based upon res judicata doctrine);
McWilliams v. State of Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574-75 (10th Cir. 1997) (repetitious litigation of
virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous or
malicious).
Under the res judicata or claim preclusion doctrine, a claim is barred by prior litigation if
the following elements are present: (1) a final decision on the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction; (2) a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies; (3) an issue in the
subsequent action which was litigated or which should have been litigated in the prior action; and
(4) identity of the causes of action. See Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 123 F.3d 877, 880 (6th
Cir. 1997). The res judicata rule “precludes not only relitigating a claim previously adjudicated;
it also precludes litigating a claim or defense that should have been raised, but was not, in the prior
suit.” Mitchell, 343 F.3d at 819. In this case, all four elements are present. The instant action must
therefore be dismissed pursuant to the res judicata doctrine.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Court DISMISSES the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. Before Petitioner may appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue only if he

2

"has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
When a district court denies relief on procedural grounds without addressing the merits, a certificate
of appealability should issue if reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the petitioner
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and reasonable jurists would find it
debatable whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484-85 (2000). Reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness of the Court's procedural ruling.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court also DENIES leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal as an appeal cannot be take in good faith. See Fed. R. App.
P. 24(a). This case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: December 12, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record
on this date, December 12, 2013, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

3