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.

Jackson v. State

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

January 10, 2017

EDDIE LEE JACKSON, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Court Judge

         State 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.

         BACKGROUND

         In 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.), www.3rdcc.org; http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=215176. 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).

         Jackson 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.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         To 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).

         DISCUSSION

         As a 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 ...


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.