Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dixon v. MacLaren

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

April 1, 2015

HAMIN DIXON, Petitioner,
v.
DUNCAN MacLAREN, Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

SEAN F. COX, District Judge.

Hamin Dixon, ("Petitioner"), incarcerated at the Kinross Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2254. In his pro se application, petitioner challenges his conviction for delivery of cocaine, M.C.L.A. 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); and being a third felony habitual offender, M.C.L.A. 769.11. Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the petition was not timely filed in accordance with the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1). For the reasons stated below, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed.

I. Background

Petitioner pleaded guilty to the above charge in the St. Clair County Circuit Court. Petitioner was sentenced on October 15, 2004 to one and a half to forty years in prison.

Petitioner, by his own admission, did not appeal his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals or Michigan Supreme Court.

On May 23, 2012, Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with the trial court. After the trial court and the Michigan Court of Appeals denied Petitioner post-conviction relief, collateral review of Petitioner's conviction ended in the state courts on May 28, 2013, when the Michigan Supreme Court denied Petitioner's application for leave to appeal the denial of his post-conviction motion. People v. Dixon, 494 Mich. 854; 830 N.W.2d 764 (2013).

On May 2, 2014, Petitioner filed the current petition for writ of habeas corpus.[1]

II. Discussion

Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).[2]

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Sanders v. Freeman, 221 F.3d 846, 851 (6th Cir. 2000)(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must set forth specific facts sufficient to show that a reasonable factfinder could return a verdict in his favor. Id. The summary judgment rule applies to habeas proceedings. See Redmond v. Jackson, 295 F.Supp.2d 767, 770 (E.D. Mich. 2003).

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), which was signed into law on April 24, 1996, amended the habeas corpus statute in several respects, one of which was to mandate a statute of limitations for habeas actions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) imposes a one-year statute of limitations upon petitions for habeas relief:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed if the applicant ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.