United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Anthony P. Patti Mag. Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING RESPONDENT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT , (2) DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR EQUITABLE TOLLING , (3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY, (4) AND DENYING PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA
E. LEVY United States District Judge
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
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
Standard of Review
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).
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).