United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEALABILITY, AND
DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Court Judge
prisoner Eddie Lee Jackson filed a pro se habeas corpus
petition challenging his 1991 Wayne County, Michigan
convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a
firearm during the commission of a felony. Jackson asserts
that the criminal information, criminal complaint, and felony
warrant were not supported by an oath or affirmation as
required by the Fourth Amendment. The Court concludes for the
reasons below that Jackson's claim is not cognizable on
habeas review and does not warrant habeas corpus relief.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the petition.
1990, Jackson was charged in a felony information, felony
complaint, and felony arrest warrant with one count of
first-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316(1)(a),
and one count of felony firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.227b. On February 13, 1991, a jury in the former
Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit, found Jackson
guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Jackson on March
1, 1991, to two years in prison for the felony-firearm
conviction and to a consecutive term of life imprisonment for
the murder conviction. People v. Jackson, Register
of Actions, Case No. 90-012305-01-FC (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct.),
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Jackson's
convictions, and on July 28, 1995, the Michigan Supreme Court
denied leave to appeal. See People v. Jackson, 449
Mich. 906 (1995).
has not provided any additional information about his case,
and the Court has found no record of any post-conviction
proceedings in state or federal court. Jackson dated his
habeas corpus petition on November 23, 2016, and on December
1, 2016, the Clerk of the Court filed the petition.
obtain relief from a federal court on habeas corpus review, a
state prisoner must demonstrate that he or she ″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). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
″provides that district courts ′must promptly
examine′ state prisoner habeas petitions and must
dismiss the petition ′[i]f it plainly appears . . .
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.′″
Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 207 (2006).
preliminary matter, Jackson′s habeas petition appears
to be barred by the one-year statute of limitations that
governs habeas corpus petitions brought by state prisoners.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) governs this case
because Petitioner filed his habeas petition after AEDPA was
enacted. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997).
AEDPA established a one-year period of limitations for state
prisoners to file their federal habeas corpus petitions.
Wall v. Kholi, 562 U.S. 545, 550 (2011) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The limitations period ordinarily
runs from the latest of the following four dates:
(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 was
prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D). The limitations period is
tolled while ″a properly filed application for State
post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to
the pertinent judgment or claim ...