Haugh v. Stewart
Filing
3
OPINION and ORDER Summarily Denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability and Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEBORAH HAUGH,
Petitioner,
Case No. 5:16-cv-10853
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
v.
ANTHONY STEWART,
Respondent.
_________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Deborah Haugh, (“Petitioner”), incarcerated at the Huron Valley Complex in Ypsilanti,
Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner pleaded
no contest in the Oakland Circuit Court to seven counts of embezzlement. As a result of her
convictions, Petitioner was sentenced to seven concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of
which are two terms of five-to-twenty years for embezzlement over $100,000. MICH. COMP. LAWS
§ 750.1747. The pro se petition raises two claims: 1) the sentencing court incorrectly scored a
sentencing guideline offense variable because corporate employees are not victims under that
variable, and 2) a corporation is not a “vulnerable victim” under another offense variable of the
sentencing guidelines. The petition for writ of habeas corpus will be summarily denied because
Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable. The Court will also deny Petitioner a certificate of
appealability and permission to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
I. Background
Petitioner plea no contest in the Oakland Circuit Court to seven counts of embezzlement on
January 28, 2014. Petitioner was sentenced on March 11, 2014. Petitioner filed a direct appeal in the
Michigan Court of Appeals, raising what now form her two habeas claims. The court of appeals
affirmed her convictions. People v. Haugh, No. 323565 (Mich. Ct. App. October 20, 2014).
Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court which was
denied on March 25, 2015. People v. Haugh, No. 150629 (Mich. Sup. Ct. March 25, 2015).
II. Discussion
Petitioner fails to state a claim upon which habeas relief can be granted. A petition for a writ
of habeas corpus must set forth facts that give rise to a cause of action under federal law or it may
summarily be dismissed. Perez v. Hemingway, 157 F. Supp. 2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Federal
courts are also authorized to dismiss any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face.
McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). A federal district court is authorized to summarily
dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it plainly appears from the face of the petition or the exhibits that
are attached to it, that the petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. See Carson v. Burke, 178
F. 3d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1999); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
A sentence imposed within the statutory limits, as Petitioner’s sentence, is not generally
subject to habeas review. Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741 (1948); Cook v. Stegall, 56 F. Supp.
2d 788, 797 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
Petitioner claims that the trial court incorrectly scored her sentencing guidelines under
Michigan law. Petitioner attached a copy of the application for leave to appeal she filed in the
Michigan Court of Appeals. The application confirms that Petitioner’s claims were entirely based
on alleged violations of state sentencing law. Neither her state court filing nor her federal habeas
petition allege any violation of her federal constitutional rights.
2
An argument based on a perceived error or alleged violation of state law fails to state a claim
on which habeas relief may be granted. Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984); Austin v. Jackson,
213 F.3d 298, 300 (6th Cir. 2000). Moreover, “the actual computation of [a petitioner’s] prison term
involves a matter of state law that is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Kipen v. Renico, 65
F. App’x 958, 959 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Estelle v. McGuire 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991)). “[I]n short,
petitioner ha[s] no federal constitutional right to be sentenced within Michigan’s guideline minimum
sentence recommendations.” Doyle v. Scutt, 347 F. Supp. 2d 474, 485 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Any error
by the trial court in calculating her guideline score or in departing above his sentencing guidelines
range alone would not merit habeas relief. Id.
Against that backdrop, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief with
respect to her claims.
III. Conclusion
The Court will deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court will also deny a
certificate of appealability to Petitioner. In order to obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner
must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To
demonstrate this denial, the applicant is required to show that reasonable jurists could debate
whether, or agree that, the petition should have been resolved in a different manner, or that the issues
presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 483-84 (2000). When a district court rejects a habeas petitioner’s constitutional claims on the
merits, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims to be debatable or wrong. Id. at 484. A federal district court
may grant or deny a certificate of appealability when the court issues a ruling on the habeas petition.
3
Castro v. United States, 310 F.3d 900, 901 (6th Cir. 2002).
For the reasons stated in this opinion, the Court will deny Petitioner a certificate of
appealability because she has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal
constitutional right. Dell v. Straub, 194 F. Supp. 2d 629, 659 (E.D. Mich. 2002). The Court will also
deny Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis, because the appeal would be frivolous.
IV. ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner will be DENIED leave to appeal in forma
pauperis.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: March 14, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record
on this date, March 14, 2016, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager
4
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?