United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION
TO DISMISS (DOC. 4) AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE AN
COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Roderic
Martez Rooks, a state prisoner, challenges his convictions on
drug and weapons offenses. Before the Court is
Respondent's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the
petition was not timely filed. For the reasons that follow,
the motion will be denied.
his convictions after a bench trial, Petitioner filed an
appeal of right with the Michigan Court of Appeals. The
Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's
convictions. People v. Rooks, No. 307180, 2013 WL
1689277 (Mich.Ct.App. Apr. 18, 2013). The Michigan Supreme
Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Rooks, 495
Mich. 854 (2013). On September 24, 2014, the United States
Supreme Court denied certiorari. Rooks v. Michigan,
134 S.Ct. 1291 (2014).
then filed a motion for relief from judgment with the trial
court three hundred and thirty seven days later, on January
28, 2015. The trial court denied the motion. People v.
Rooks, No. 11-235719-FC (Oakland Cty. Cir. Ct., Dec. 18,
2015). The Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme
Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Rooks, No.
331634 (Mich.Ct.App. May 13, 2016); People v. Rooks,
500 Mich. 933 (2017) (Jan. 31, 2017). Petitioner then
apparently filed a motion for reconsideration with the
Michigan Supreme Court, which was rejected on February 22,
2017. See Doc. 15 from Michigan Court of Appeals Docket. No.
331634, Respondent's Appendix E. Petitioner, through
counsel, filed the instant petition on March 2, 2017.
petitions are subject to a one-year statute of limitations.
The relevant statute provides that the statute runs from the
(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).
direct review of Petitioner's conviction ended on
February 24, 2014, when the United States Supreme Court
denied certiorari. See Clay v. U.S.,537 U.S. 522,
529, n. 4 (2003). Petitioner therefore had one year, or until
February 24, ...