United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner
Navjot Singh is a state inmate currently incarcerated at the
Saginaw Correctional Facility in Freeland, Michigan. He
challenges his convictions for armed robbery and assault with
intent to murder, raising two grounds for relief. It is
apparent from the face of the petition that one of the habeas
claims has not been exhausted in state court. Therefore, the
Court dismisses the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pleaded no contest in Calhoun County Circuit Court to armed
robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529, and assault with
intent to murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.83. On January
27, 2017, he was sentenced to 12 to 25 years for the armed
robbery conviction and 10 to 25 years for the assault with
intent to commit murder conviction.
filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan
Court of Appeals raising these claims: (i) trial court failed
to comply with state court rules by failing to personally
advise Petitioner of his right to a trial, his right to
confront his accuser, and his right to remain silent or to
testify in his own defense; (ii) trial court's failure to
personally advise Petitioner of the rights he would be giving
up by entering a plea rendered the plea involuntary; and
(iii) trial court abused its discretion by denying pre-trial
motion to withdraw plea. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied
leave to appeal. People v. Singh, No. 337465 (Mich.
Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2017). Petitioner filed an application for
leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court raising the
same claims presented to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The
Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. People v.
Singh, 501 Mich. 947 (Mich. Dec. 27, 2017).
filed the pending habeas petition on February 8, 2108. He
raises these claims:
I. The defendant Mr. Singh was denied his due process rights
to a fair trial/plea hearing due to the ineffective
assistance of counsel.
II. The trial court erred in denying Petitioner Navjot
Singh's motion to withdraw his plea, as his plea was
coerced and he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
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 habeas petition contains an unexhausted
claim; therefore, the petition will be dismissed.
prisoner filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. §2254 must first exhaust all state remedies.
See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845
(1999) ("[S]tate prisoners must give the state courts
one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by
invoking one complete round of the State's established
appellate review process"). 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 Fed.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. A/a// v. Phillips, 681 F.3d 837, 852
(6th Cir. 2012).
has failed to present his ineffective assistance of counsel
claim in state court. Federal habeas law provides that a
habeas petitioner is only entitled to relief if he can show
that the state court adjudication of his claims resulted in a
decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law as determined
by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d). The state courts must first be given a fair
opportunity to rule upon Petitioner's habeas claims
before he can present those claims to this Court. Otherwise,
the Court cannot apply the habeas standard of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Furthermore, the state court proceedings may
result in the reversal of Petitioner's convictions,
thereby mooting the federal questions presented. See
Humphrey v. Scutt, No. 08-CV-14605, 2008 WL 4858091,