United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DENYING THE MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS , AND DENYING
THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, United States District Judge
Ivann Perez-Garcia, ("Petitioner" or
"Perez-Garcia"), filed a pro se petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Perez-Garcia challenges his convictions for first-degree
murder, kidnapping, first-degree home invasion, arson, and
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the
petition for writ of habeas corpus.
trial in Wayne County Circuit Court, a jury convicted
Perez-Garcia. Petitioner's convictions arose from the
March 2005 murder of Julio Perez in Detroit. At the time of
his arrest, Perez-Garcia allegedly requested counsel.
Perez-Garcia v. Berghuis, No. 09-10839, 2010 WL
3905118, at *1-2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2010). Perez-Garcia
claims he repeated the request when he arrived at the police
station. Id. Finally, Perez-Garcia avers that he
requested counsel during an interrogation by Officer Derryck
Thomas. Id. Despite these requests, Perez-Garcia
signed a waiver consistent with Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436 (1966), and dictated a lengthy, highly-detailed
murder confession. Id. At trial, Perez-Garcia repudiated
his confession; he claimed that Thomas forced him to sign the
confession and that the crimes were committed by a different
Michigan Court of Appeals denied Perez-Garcia's delayed
application for leave to appeal. People v.
Perez-Garcia, No. 275747 (Mich. Ct. App. May 22, 2007);
lv. den. 480 Mich. 964 (2007).
subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with
the federal court. Petitioner's sole claim for relief was
that his confession to the police should have been suppressed
because the interrogating officer denied his request for
counsel. The court denied his petition on the merits.
Perez-Garcia v. Berghuis, No. 09-10839, 2010 WL
3905118 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2010); appeal dism. No. 10-2444
(6th Cir. Apr. 26, 2011).
2011, a state trial court judge granted Perez-Garcia's
motion to reissue his judgment of sentence pursuant to Mich.
Ct. R. 6.428, on the ground that counsel's
ineffectiveness prevented petitioner from filing a timely
appeal of right. People v. Perez-Garcia, No.
05-004892-01-FC (Third Jud. Cir. Ct., Crim. Div., April 29,
subsequently filed an appeal of right with the Michigan Court
of Appeals. That court reaffirmed Petitioner's
conviction. People v. Perez-Garcia, No. 305086, 2012
WL 5856909 (Mich. Ct. App. October 30, 2012). Petitioner did
not seek leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court.
November 5, 2013, Perez-Garcia filed the pending application
for writ of habeas corpus. On November 26, 2013, the Court
held the petition for writ of habeas corpus in abeyance to
permit Perez-Garcia to return to state court to exhaust
additional claims that had not been previously presented. ECF
filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment,
which was denied. People v. Perez-Garcia, No.
05-004892-01-FC (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct., May 16, 2014);
reconsideration den. No. 05-004892-01-FC (Wayne Cty. Cir.
Ct., June 25, 2014). The Michigan appellate courts denied
petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Perez-Garcia,
No. 324619 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2015); lv. den. 499
Mich. 855 (2016).
the exhaustion of his state post-conviction motion in the
state courts, Perez-Garcia filed a motion to lift the stay
and a motion to amend the petition, ECF 10 and 12, which the
Court granted on April 19, 2016, ECF 14. Respondent filed a
motion to transfer the petition to the Sixth Circuit pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), on the ground that
Perez-Garcia's petition was an unauthorized second or
successive habeas challenge his conviction. ECF 16. On
October 28, 2016, the Court granted Respondent's motion
to transfer the petition to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. ECF 19. The Sixth Circuit
ruled that it was unnecessary for Petitioner to obtain
authorization to file a successive petition with respect to
his new claims, and remanded the matter to the Court for
consideration. In re Perez-Garcia, No. 16-2526 (6th Cir. Apr.
20, 2017). The Sixth Circuit ruled that petitioner could not
raise his confession claim again because he had previously
been denied habeas relief on the claim. Id.
August 7, 2017, the Court ordered respondent to file an
answer to the petition within ninety days. ECF 22. Respondent
filed an answer on October 30, 2017. Petitioner filed a reply
to the answer as well as motions for the transcript and for
summary judgment, ECF 25 and 26. Petitioner seeks habeas
relief on the following grounds: (1) the state trial court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over petitioner's case
because (a) the Wayne County Prosecutor failed to endorse or
personally sign the arrest warrant, and (b) the criminal
complaint and the information were defective; (2) the trial
judge failed to instruct the jurors on the elements of the
crimes charged at the beginning of trial; (3) police and
prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) petitioner was denied a
fair trial because (a) the judge failed to appoint a
Spanish-speaking interpreter, and (b) counsel was ineffective
for failing to request an interpreter.
Court may grant Perez-Garcia's petition only if the state
court's rejection of his claims "was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States, " or "was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented
in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. §
court decision is "contrary to" clearly established
federal law if it reaches a conclusion opposite to a Supreme
Court decision on a question of law or if it decides case
differently from the Supreme Court on a set of materially
indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529
U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000). An "unreasonable
application" occurs when "a state court decision
unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the
facts of a prisoner's case." Id. at 409. A
federal habeas court may not "issue the writ simply
because that court concludes in its independent judgment that
the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established
federal law erroneously or incorrectly." Id. at
411. "A state court's determination that a claim
lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as
'fairminded jurists could disagree' on the
correctness of the state court's decision."
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011)
(citing Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664
(2004)). In order to obtain habeas relief in federal court,
therefore, a state prisoner must show that the state
court's rejection of his claim "was so lacking in
justification that there was an error well understood and
comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for
fairminded disagreement." Id. at 103. A court
should deny a habeas petitioner relief so long as it is
within the "realm of possibility" that fairminded
jurists could find the state court decision to be reasonable.
See Woods v. Etherton, 136 S.Ct. 1149, 1152 (2016).
Motion for Transcripts
filed a motion for transcripts and other documents pertaining
to the arrest and search warrants in his case. ECF 25.
petitioners have no right to automatic discovery.
Stanford v. Parker,266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir.
2001). A district court has discretion to grant discovery to
a petitioner in a habeas case upon a fact-specific showing of
good cause. Id. A federal district court may permit
discovery if the specific allegations-if fully
developed-could give the district court reason to consider
granting federal habeas relief. See Johnson v.
Mitchell,585 F.3d 923, 934 (6th Cir. 2009); see also
Lott v. Coyle,261 F.3d 594, 602 ...