United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
RICHARD T. HEIT, Petitioner,
TIM DONNELLEN, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
D. Borman United States District Judge
Richard T. Heit filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting he is being held
beyond the expiration of his sentence. Petitioner is
incarcerated at the St. Clair County Intervention and
Detention Center pursuant to a domestic violence conviction.
Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies.
Therefore, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice.
a habeas corpus action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Upon 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”). The Rules Governing Section 2254 cases may be
applied at the discretion of the district court judge to
petitions under habeas statutes in addition to § 2254.
Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
prisoner challenging the execution of his sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 must exhaust his state court remedies
before filing suit in federal court. Greene v. Tennessee
Department of Corrections, 265 F.3d 369, 371-72 (6th
Cir. 2001). To exhaust state court remedies, a claim must be
fairly presented “to every level of the state courts in
one full round.” Ambrose v. Romanowski, 621 F.
App'x 808, 814 (6th Cir. 2015). See also Wagner v.
Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 418 (6th Cir. 2009) (“For a
claim to be reviewable at the federal level, each claim must
be presented at every stage of the state appellate
process.”). A petitioner bears the burden of showing
that state court remedies have been exhausted. Nali v.
Phillips, 681 F.3d 837, 852 (6th Cir. 2012).
case, Petitioner states that he raised his claim that he is
being held beyond the expiration of his sentence with the St.
Clair County Intervention and Detention Facility, and that
his claim was denied. Petition at 2. According to his
petition, Petitioner has not sought relief in any Michigan
state court. Petitioner has an available remedy in state
court through which he may exhaust the claims presented in
the pending petition. A Michigan state prisoner challenging
his continued incarceration based upon a claim that his
maximum sentence has expired may file a complaint for writ of
habeas corpus in the appropriate state circuit court.
See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4301 et seq., Mich.
Ct. R. 3.303; In re: Callahan, 348 Mich. 77 (Mich.
1957); Baatz v. Rapelje, No. 12-11969, 2012 WL
30000597, *1 (E.D. Mich. July 23, 2012). The denial by the
circuit court of a state habeas corpus complaint may be
reviewed by filing an original complaint for a writ of habeas
corpus in the Michigan Court of Appeals. See Triplett v.
Deputy Warden, 142 Mich.App. 774, 779-80 (1985). Denial
of this petition by the Michigan Court of Appeals is
reviewable by the Michigan Supreme Court by filing an
application for leave to appeal. M.C.R. 7.301 (A)(2); M.C.R.
has failed to exhaust available state court remedies for his
habeas claims and the petition will be dismissed without
the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition for a writ
of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1).
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 federal
court denies a habeas claim 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 district court was
correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack
v.McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Reasonable
jurists could not debate the correctness of the Court's
ruling. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a
certificate of appealability.