United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Bradley Grooms, (“Petitioner”), confined at the
Ojibway Correctional Facility in Marenisco, Michigan, filed a
pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenges his
conviction for delivery of heroin, M.C.L.A.
333.7401(2)(a)(iv); and being a fourth felony habitual
offender, M.C.L.A. 769.12. For the reasons that follow, the
petition for writ of habeas corpus is SUMMARILY DENIED WITH
was charged with two counts of delivery of heroin and one
count of conspiracy to deliver heroin. Petitioner was also
charged as a fourth felony habitual offender.
16, 2016, petitioner entered a plea of guilty to one count of
delivery of heroin as a fourth felony habitual offender, in
exchange for dismissal of the other charges. The judge also
agreed to sentence petitioner to no more than 46 months on
the minimum sentence. (Tr. 5/16/16, pp. 4-5). Petitioner made
out a factual basis for the delivery of heroin charge, but
did not specifically admit to being a fourth felony habitual
offender. (Id., pp. 6-7). Petitioner was sentenced
the same day to 46 months to 20 years in prison.
(Id., p. 16).
counsel filed a motion to correct the invalid sentence, on
the ground that petitioner never pleaded guilty to being a
fourth felony habitual offender. Petitioner also objected to
the scoring of the sentencing guidelines. The judge denied
the motion. People v. Grooms, No. 16-006970-FH
(Alpena Cty. Cir.Ct., July 21, 2016).
plea and sentence were affirmed on appeal. People v.
Grooms, No. 334249 (Mich.Ct.App. Sep. 26, 2016); lv.
den. 894 N.W.2d 50 (2017).
seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following grounds:
I. Whether the trial judge erred when it failed to amend the
judgment to remove the Hab 4th and for failing to
follow the correct procedures under Lockridge and
II. The scoring of OV-14 was wrongly decided by trial court
and should have been scored at Zero points seeing there's
a lack of record evidence to support the scoring.
Court summarily dismisses the petition because petitioner
failed to state a claim upon which habeas relief can be
petition for a writ of habeas corpus must set forth facts
that give rise to a cause of action under federal law or it
may summarily be dismissed. See Perez v. Hemingway,
157 F.Supp.2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Federal courts are
also authorized to dismiss any habeas petition that appears
legally insufficient on its face. See McFarland v.
Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). A federal district
court is authorized to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus
petition if it plainly appears from the face of the petition
or the exhibits that are attached to it that the petitioner
is not entitled to federal habeas relief. See Carson v.
Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1999); Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. §
2254. The Sixth Circuit “disapprove[s] the practice of
issuing a show cause order [to the respondent] until after
the District Court first has made a careful examination of
the petition.” Allen v. Perini, 424 F.3d 134,
140 (6th Cir. 1970). A district court must screen out any
habeas corpus petition which lacks merit on its face.
Id. at 141. No return to a habeas petition is
necessary when the petition is frivolous, or obviously lacks
merit, or where the necessary facts can be determined from
the petition itself without receiving an answer by the state.
undertaking the review required by Rule 4, this Court
concludes, for reasons stated in greater detail below, that
petitioner's claims do not entitle him to habeas relief,
such that the petition must be summarily denied. See