United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Phillip J. Green, United States Magistrate Judge
a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Promptly after the filing of a petition
for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary
review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly
appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits
annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief
in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing §
2254 Cases; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the
petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen
v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district
court has the duty to “screen out” petitions that
lack merit on their face). A dismissal under Rule 4 includes
those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well
as those containing factual allegations that are palpably
incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434,
436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court may sua sponte
dismiss a habeas action as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d). Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209 (2006).
After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, I conclude
that the petition is barred by the one-year statute of
James Hobbs is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility
(IBC) in Ionia, Michigan. On November 30, 2010, Petitioner
pled guilty in Kent County Circuit Court to second-degree
criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750c(1)(a).
On November 30, 2010, the court sentenced him to 3 to 15
years in prison.
filed his habeas corpus petition on August 28, 2017. Under
Sixth Circuit precedent, the application is deemed filed when
handed to prison authorities for mailing to the federal
court. Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 521 (6th Cir.
2002). Petitioner signed his application on August 28, 2017.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.17.) The petition was received by
the Court on August 31, 2017. For purposes of this Report and
Recommendation, I have given Petitioner the benefit of the
earliest possible filing date. See Brand v. Motley,
526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that the date the
prisoner signs the document is deemed under Sixth Circuit law
to be the date of handing to officials) (citing Goins v.
Saunders, 206 F. App'x 497, 498 n.1 (6th Cir.
Statute of Limitations
application is barred by the one-year statute of limitations
provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), which became
effective on April 24, 1996, as part of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.
1214 (AEDPA). Section 2244(d)(1) provides:
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of
(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