Pryor #572128 v. Smith
Filing
4
OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AARON STACEY PRYOR,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:11-cv-739
Honorable Robert Holmes Bell
WILLIE SMITH,
Respondent.
_______________________________/
OPINION
This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a
preliminary review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”
Rule 4, RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be
summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court
has the duty to “screen out” petitions that lack merit on their face). A dismissal under Rule 4
includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual
allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir.
1999). After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that the petition must
be dismissed because it fails to raise a meritorious federal claim.1
1
Given the length of time that has passed since the date of Petitioner’s sentence in 2005, and the date
that his petition was filed (2011), it is likely that the petition is barred by the one-year statute of limitations
in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Nevertheless, this Court has discretion to reach the merits of the petition before
considering its timeliness. See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 208 (2006).
Factual Allegations
Petitioner presently is incarcerated at the Carson City Correctional Facility. On
November 1, 2004, Petitioner was arraigned on a charge of armed robbery in the State of Minnesota
and given a fifty-thousand dollar bond. At the arraignment, the State of Michigan placed a “hold
without bond” on Petitioner. On March 21, 2005, Petitioner was sentenced in Minnesota for the
armed robbery charge. On June 26, 2005, Michigan authorities retrieved Petitioner and transferred
him to Berrien County, Michigan. On July 12, 2005, Petitioner pled guilty to a charge of armed
robbery in the State of Michigan, MICH . COMP. LAWS § 750.529. On August 8, 2005, the Berrien
County Circuit Court sentenced Petitioner to a prison term of seven to forty years, to run
concurrently with his sentence from Minnesota. Petitioner alleges that he was held in jail from
November 1, 2004 until the date of his Michigan sentence.
Discussion
Petitioner claims that his sentence violates Michigan sentencing law. He contends
that he earned 279 days of jail credit under MICH . COMP . LAWS § 769.11b, but he was awarded only
84 days of jail credit by the sentencing court. Petitioner fails to state a cognizable claim.
A federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus only if the petitioner “is in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) and
2254(a). Therefore, violations of state law and procedure which do not infringe specific federal
constitutional protections are not cognizable claims under Section 2254. Estelle v. McGuire, 502
U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991). Petitioner’s claim does not implicate any federal constitutional right. “A
prisoner has no right under the federal constitution to earn or receive sentencing credits.” Grays v.
Lafler, 618 F. Supp. 2d 736, 747 (W.D. Mich. 2008); see also Hansard v. Barrett, 980 F.2d 1059,
-2-
1062 (6th Cir. 1992) (“[t]he United States Supreme Court has held that inmates have no inherent
constitutional right to good time credit”) (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974)).
Because Petitioner’s claim challenges the interpretation and application of a state crediting statute,
it is not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Howard v. White, 76 F. App’x 52, 53 (6th Cir.
2003) (“A state court’s alleged misinterpretation of state sentencing guidelines and crediting statutes
is a matter of state concern only.”); see also Cristini v. McKee, 526 F.3d 888, 897 (6th Cir. 2008)
(“We must accept as valid a state court’s interpretation of the statutes and rules of practice of that
state.”); Hack v. Elo, 38 F. App’x 189, 194 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The interpretation of state statutes and
legislative intent by state appellate courts is a matter of state law which is not reviewable in habeas
corpus.”).
Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion that the alleged sentencing error is a violation of the
Due Process Clause does not transform this state sentencing issue into a federal claim. The Sixth
Circuit rejected a similar claim in Austin v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2000). Like the
petitioner in that case, Petitioner has failed “to articulate the grounds upon which the trial court’s
departure from the Michigan Sentencing guidelines violates any federal due process right he
possesses,” and is “unable to substantiate a single violation of any of his constitutional guarantees
to due process.” Id. at 301.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the Court will summarily dismiss Petitioner’s application
pursuant to Rule 4 because it fails to raise a meritorious federal claim.
-3-
Certificate of Appealability
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court must determine whether a certificate of
appealability should be granted. A certificate should issue if Petitioner has demonstrated a
“substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This Court’s
dismissal of Petitioner’s action under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases is a determination
that the habeas action, on its face, lacks sufficient merit to warrant service. It would be highly
unlikely for this Court to grant a certificate, thus indicating to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that
an issue merits review, when the Court has already determined that the action is so lacking in merit
that service is not warranted. See Love v. Butler, 952 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1991) (it is “somewhat
anomalous” for the court to summarily dismiss under Rule 4 and grant a certificate); Hendricks v.
Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990) (requiring reversal where court summarily dismissed under
Rule 4 but granted certificate); Dory v. Comm’r of Corr. of New York, 865 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir. 1989)
(it was “intrinsically contradictory” to grant a certificate when habeas action does not warrant service
under Rule 4); Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n.1 (2d Cir. 1983) (issuing certificate
would be inconsistent with a summary dismissal).
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of
a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district
court must “engage in a reasoned assessment of each claim” to determine whether a certificate is
warranted. Id. at 467. Each issue must be considered under the standards set forth by the Supreme
Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Consequently, this
Court has examined Petitioner’s claim under the Slack standard. Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, to
warrant a grant of the certificate, “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would
-4-
find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id. “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). In applying this standard, the Court may not conduct a full merits review, but must limit its
examination to a threshold inquiry into the underlying merit of Petitioner’s claims. Id.
The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not conclude that this Court’s dismissal
of Petitioner claim was debatable or wrong. Therefore, the Court will deny Petitioner a certificate
of appealability.
A Judgment and Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
Dated: September 12, 2011
/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
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?