United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
L. LUDINGTON, United States District Judge
a habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner
Dennis Voshell is a state inmate currently incarcerated at
the West Shoreline Correctional Facility in Muskegon Heights,
Michigan. Petitioner does not identify the claims raised or
demonstrate that he has exhausted his state court remedies.
The petition, therefore, will be dismissed.
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 (1994)
(“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily
any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its
face”). A petition may be summarily dismissed where the
allegations are so “vague (or) conclusory” that
they do not “point to a real possibility of
constitutional error.” Blackledge v. Allison,
431 U.S. 63, 76 (1977) (internal citations omitted).
“[A] claim for relief in habeas corpus must include
reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as
well as a statement of the facts which entitle the Petitioner
to relief.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152,
162-63 (1996) (internal citations omitted).
pending habeas petition challenges convictions for domestic
violence and aggravated stalking, rendered in Roscommon
County. The petition will be dismissed under Rule 4 on two
grounds. First, Petitioner fails to specify any specific
grounds for relief. The form habeas petition provides a
section for a petitioner to identify the claims raised.
Petitioner did not complete that section of the form, nor did
he otherwise identify the claims raised. See Pet. at
5. The Court will not guess on what basis Petitioner
challenges his convictions. The petition is subject to
summary dismissal on this basis.
Petitioner fails to satisfy his burden of demonstrating
exhaustion of state court remedies. The doctrine of
exhaustion of state remedies requires state prisoners to
present their claims to the state courts before raising their
claims in a federal habeas corpus petition. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) and (c); Cullen v.
Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 182 (2011). “Exhaustion
requires ‘fair presentation' of the federal claim
‘to the state courts, including the state court of
appeals and the state supreme court.'” Williams
v. Mitchell, 792 F.3d 606, 613 (6th Cir. 2015),
quoting Bray v. Andrews, 640 F.3d 731, 734-35 (6th
Cir. 2011). The burden is on the petitioner to prove
exhaustion. Nali v. Phillips, 681 F.3d 837, 852 (6th
neither alleges nor establishes that he has sought any review
of his convictions in the Michigan appellate courts.
Petitioner must present his claims to the state courts in the
Petitioner may appeal the Court's decision, a certificate
of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of
appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a court
denies relief on procedural grounds without addressing the
merits, a certificate of appealability should issue if it is
shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the petitioner states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the court was correct in its procedural
ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85
is not entitled to a certificate of appealability because his
request for habeas relief is now moot. See McKinney-Bey
v. Hawk-Sawyer, 69 F. App'x. 113 (4th Cir. 2003).
Jurists of reason would not find the Court's procedural
ruling debatable. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability
is not warranted in this case. Leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal will also be denied, as any appeal
would be frivolous. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
it is ORDERED that Petitioner's petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is
further ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma