Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Haynes v. Gidley

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

February 26, 2018

Timothy Haynes, Petitioner,
Lori Gidley, Respondent.

          Anthony P. Patti Mag. Judge.


          JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

         Petitioner Timothy Haynes, a Michigan Department of Corrections prisoner, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenges his Oakland Circuit Court jury trial conviction for first-degree home invasion, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.110a(2), for which he is serving a term of 10-to-40 years' imprisonment.

         The petition raises eleven claims: (1) insufficient evidence was presented at trial to sustain petitioner's conviction, (2) the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury on self-defense, (3) the trial court erred in allowing admission of petitioner's prior conviction, (4) the state district court erred in binding petitioner over for trial, (5) the prosecutor violated the trial court's discovery order, (6) petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, (7) petitioner's acts were justified by self-defense, (8) the prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner committed an assault inside a dwelling, (9) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument, (10) petitioner was improperly sentenced as a habitual felony offender, and (11) petitioner was denied the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel with respect to sentencing.

         Before the Court is respondent's motion to dismiss the petition on the basis that it was filed after expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. (Dkt. 7.); See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner has filed a response to the motion he labels as a “motion for equitable tolling, ” asserting that prison conditions excuse his untimely filing. (Dkt. 9.) The Court will grant respondent's motion and dismiss the case. The Court will also deny petitioner a certificate of appealability, and it will deny permission to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

         I. Background

         Petitioner filed an appeal following his conviction and sentence. On April 23, 2013, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied petitioner relief. People v. Haynes, 2013 WL 1748588, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2013). The Michigan Supreme Court subsequently denied petitioner's appeal on October 28, 2013. People v. Haynes, 838 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. 2013) (table).

         For purposes of calculating the starting point of the one-year deadline for filing his federal habeas petition, petitioner's conviction became final 90 days later-on Monday, January 26, 2014-the last day petitioner could have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. See Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 332-33 (2007); Bronaugh v. Ohio, 235 F.3d 280, 283 (6th Cir. 2000).

         Nearly a year later, on December 19, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment in the state trial court. As will be discussed below, the filing of this motion acted to stop the one-year clock. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). The trial court denied the motion on February 6, 2015. (Dkt. 8-10.) Petitioner appealed this decision, but on November 4, 2015, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied his application for leave to appeal. People v. Haynes, No. 147283 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2015). Petitioner then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, but that court denied his appeal on December 28, 2016. People v. Haynes, 888 N.W.2d 62 (Mich. 2016) (table). The one-year clock started running again the next day from the point at which it stopped.

         Petitioner did not date his federal habeas petition, but the envelope shows that it was placed in the mail on May 2, 2017, several months after the one-year time limit expired.

         II. Standard of Review

         Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 7.) However, because the motion and the record before the Court includes a number of documents outside of the pleadings, the Court will treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d).

         Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. In considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court will construe all facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, here the petitioner. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). There are no genuine issues of material fact when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Id. If the movant carries its burden of showing an absence of evidence to support a claim, then the non-movant must demonstrate by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25 (1986). This standard of review may be applied to habeas proceedings. Redmond v. Jackson, 295 F.Supp.2d 767, 770 (E.D. Mich. 2003).

         III. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.