United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
L. MALONEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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). After undertaking the review required
by Rule 4, the Court concludes Petitioner has failed to
exhaust his available state-court remedies as to all of the
claims raised in the petition. Because Petitioner has fewer
than 60 days remaining in the limitations period, the Court
will not dismiss the action at this time, pending
Petitioner's compliance with the further directions of
this Court set forth in this opinion and attached order.
Jamie Christopher Arnett is incarcerated with the Michigan
Department of Corrections at the Oaks Correctional Facility
(ECF) in Manistee, Michigan. On November 15, 2013, a Tuscola
County Circuit Court jury, found Petitioner guilty of 20
counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(a). On January 2, 2014, the
court sentenced Petitioner to 20 concurrent sentences of 25
years to 37 years, six months' imprisonment.
February 14, 2018, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus
petition. 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 placed his petition in the
prison mailing system on February 14, 2018. (Pet., ECF No. 1,
petition purports to raise four grounds for relief,
paraphrased as follows:
I. Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel and
a fair trial where his attorney failed to object to the
forensic interviewer and other vouching for the credibility
of the child complainant.
II. The trial court erred in allowing into evidence the
recorded interview of the child complainant with the forensic
interviewer and Petitioner was deprived of effective
assistance of counsel because his attorney did not object.
III. Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel
because his attorney did not completely advise him of his
chances of an acquittal.
IV. Petitioner was deprived of his constitutional right to
counsel because he received ineffective assistance of counsel
in the failure to his trial attorney to consult with or call
an expert pediatrics witness.
(Pet., ECF No.1-1, PageID.17-19.) Petitioner raised each of
these issue on his direct appeal.
has also indicated his intention to raise three additional
issues, paraphrased as follows:
V. Petitioner was deprived of his federal and state
constitutional right to the effective assistance of appellate
counsel on his appeal as of right in the Michigan Court of
Appeals where, on remand from the court of appeals,
court-appointed appellate counsel failed to file a timely
motion in the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to
establish a record of Petitioner's ineffective assistance
of trial ...