United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Jeremy Ruiz filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is incarcerated at the Macomb Correctional Facility in New Haven, Michigan after convictions for possession of child sexually abusive material and failure to register with the Michigan sex offender registry. His habeas petition says the trial court erred in failing to credit the time spent in custody prior to sentencing because he committed the instant offenses while serving a term of parole.
It is apparent from the face of the petition that habeas relief is not warranted; the Court summarily dismisses the petition.
On August 9, 2013, Petitioner pled guilty in Muskegon County Circuit Court to possession of child sexually abusive material and failure to register as a sex offender under Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registry Act. On September 16, 2013, he was sentenced to 1 year, 7 months to 6 years’ imprisonment for each conviction, to be served concurrently. At the time he committed these offenses, Petitioner was serving a term of parole. Based upon his parole status, the trial court did not credit Petitioner for time served while awaiting sentencing on the new offenses.
Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal “for lack of merit in the grounds presented.” People v. Ruiz, No. 320083 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2014). Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Ruiz, 497 Mich. 855 (Mich. Sept. 5, 2014).
Petitioner then filed the pending habeas petition. He raises a single claim:
Mr. Ruiz was denied his state and federal constitutional rights to due process by the circuit court’s failure to award credit of 69 days served, where the department of corrections’ systematically fails to individualize punishment for parole violations and instead uses an arbitrary system that is inconsistent with Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.7A(2).
The court must promptly examine a habeas 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 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face”). This petition does not present grounds which may establish the violation of a federal constitutional right.
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 the state court’s adjudication of his claims –
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the ...