United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING PERMISSION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
PATRICK J. DUGGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Kenneth Poindexter, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Parnall Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is serving a term of imprisonment of 23 to 60 months for forgery. The Court finds that the petition fails to state a claim upon which habeas relief may be granted and denies the petition.
According to the petition, a warrant was issued for Petitioner on June 8, 2011, in Emmet County. When purchasing a motorcycle, Petitioner gave a false name at the time of obtaining the title. After the warrant was issued, Petitioner was incarcerated in Illinois on June 8, 2011, on an unrelated charge. He remained incarcerated in Illinois until he was returned to Michigan on November 26, 2013.
On December 20, 2013, Petitioner pleaded guilty in Emmet County Circuit Court to document forgery. On February 12, 2014, Petitioner was sentenced to 23 to 60 months in prison. The trial court denied defense counsel’s motion to credit Petitioner’s sentence for the time served in Illinois prior to his return to Michigan.
Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals challenging the trial court’s refusal to provide him jail credit for the time he was incarcerated in Illinois. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. People v. Poindexter, No. 321554 (Mich. Ct. App. June 6, 2014). Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, which was also denied. People v. Poindexter, 497 Mich. 871 (2014).
Petitioner then filed the instant habeas petition. He raises this claim:
Where the trial court judge acknowledged that Petitioner was not on parole, due process requires correction of the judgment of sentence to provide for jail credit for the time he was incarcerated in Illinois and unable to post bond due to a bond increase caused by the issuance of a warrant in the instant case.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Upon the filing of a habeas corpus petition, the court must promptly examine the petition to determine “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. If the court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall summarily dismiss the petition. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856, 114 S.Ct. 2568, 2572 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face”). The habeas petition does not present grounds which may establish the violation of a federal constitutional right; therefore, the petition will be dismissed.
Review of this case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Under the AEDPA, a state prisoner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus only if he can show that ...