Ford v. Miniard

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER transferring case to United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C 2244(b)(3)(A). Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (TTho)

Case 5:22-cv-11386-JEL-KGA ECF No. 6, PageID.119 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Antione Ford,
a/k/a Oba El Oludumare
Mugabe Monstsho Omorede,
Petitioner,

Case No. 22-11386

v.

Honorable Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge

Gary Miniard,

Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman

Respondent.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)
Antione Ford, (“Petitioner”), who is confined at the Central
Michigan Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan, filed a pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner, under the alias of Oba El Oludumare Mugabe Monstsho
Omorede, argues that the State of Michigan lacked jurisdiction to
prosecute him because he is the King of the Omorede Tribe of North
America and a sovereign citizen.
Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in the Kent County
Circuit Court. Petitioner challenges his conviction for two counts of using

Case 5:22-cv-11386-JEL-KGA ECF No. 6, PageID.120 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 6

a child for sexually abusive activity, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.145c(2), two
counts of transporting a female person for prostitution, Mich. Comp.
Laws § 750.459, two counts of pandering, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.455,
and being a fourth felony habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.12.
Because the Court concludes that the present petition constitutes a
“second or successive petition” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)(A), the Court will transfer the matter to the Court of Appeals
so that Petitioner may seek permission to proceed.
I. Background
Petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition, which was denied
on the merits. Ford v. Berghuis, No. 1:05-cv-00098 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 9,
2007) (adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge). Petitioner has since been twice denied permission by the Sixth
Circuit to file a successive federal habeas petition. In re Ford, No. 112565 (6th Cir. Sept. 13, 2012); In re Ford, No. 13-1130 (6th Cir. Apr. 17,
2014).
II. Discussion
Petitioner has filed a previous petition for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging his conviction. An individual seeking to file a second or
2

Case 5:22-cv-11386-JEL-KGA ECF No. 6, PageID.121 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 6

successive habeas petition must first ask the appropriate court of appeals
for an order authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641
(1998). For successive petitions, the United States Congress has vested
in the court of appeals a screening function that the district court would
have performed otherwise. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996).
Under the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act (AEDPA), a federal district court does not have jurisdiction
to entertain a successive post-conviction motion or petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in the absence of an order from the court of appeals
authorizing the filing of such a successive motion or petition. See
Ferrazza v. Tessmer, 36 F. Supp. 2d 965, 971 (E.D. Mich. 1999). When a
habeas petitioner files a second or successive petition for habeas corpus
relief in the district court without preauthorization from the court of
appeals, the district court must transfer the document to the court of
appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (directing that “[w]henever a civil action is
filed in a court ... and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction,
the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action ... to
any other such court in which the action ... could have been brought at
3

Case 5:22-cv-11386-JEL-KGA ECF No. 6, PageID.122 Filed 01/19/23 Page 4 of 6

the time it was filed”); In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir.1997) (holding
that “when a prisoner has sought § 2244(b)(3) permission from the
district court, or when a second or successive petition for habeas corpus
relief or § 2255 motion 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.”).
The fact that Petitioner filed his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 and not under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 does not permit him to circumvent
the limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions found in 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). Section 2241 authorizes federal district courts to
issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state or federal prisoner who is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 28 U.S.C.§ 2254 is more specific and
confers jurisdiction on district courts to “entertain an application for a
writ of habeas corpus [o]n behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a).

4

Case 5:22-cv-11386-JEL-KGA ECF No. 6, PageID.123 Filed 01/19/23 Page 5 of 6

It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that when two
statutes cover the same situation, the more specific statute takes
precedence over the more general one. See Edmond v. United States, 520
U.S. 651, 657 (1997). The Sixth Circuit has noted that “numerous federal
decisions ...support the view that all petitions filed on behalf of persons
in custody pursuant to State court judgments are filed under section
2254” and are subject to the various restrictions imposed by the AEDPA
for obtaining habeas relief from a state conviction. See Rittenberry v.
Morgan, 468 F.3d 331, 337 (6th Cir. 2006) (emphasis original). The
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) which govern the filing of successive
petitions by state prisoners under § 2254 thus apply equally to habeas
petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a person who is in custody
pursuant to a state court judgment. Id., at 336–37. Petitioner must
therefore seek authorization from the Sixth Circuit under § 2244(b)
before filing this petition, even though it was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Id. at 338.
In addition, Petitioner’s position that the state court lacked
jurisdiction is subject to the limitations on the filing of successive habeas

5

Case 5:22-cv-11386-JEL-KGA ECF No. 6, PageID.124 Filed 01/19/23 Page 6 of 6

petitions contained within 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). See Clark v.
Milyard, 341 F. App’x 353, 354 (10th Cir. 2009).
In sum, because Petitioner has previously filed a habeas petition
with the federal courts challenging his conviction, which was denied on
the merits, Petitioner cannot proceed with the issues raised in the
present petition without first obtaining permission to file a second or
successive habeas petition from the court of appeals. Accordingly, the
Clerk of Court is ORDERED to transfer the habeas petition to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to Sims
and 28 U.S.C. § 1631. See Galka v. Caruso, 599 F. Supp. 2d 854, 857 (E.D.
Mich. 2009).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 19, 2023
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their
respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on January 19, 2023.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager

6