United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
DISMISSING THE PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DECLINING TO ISSUE
A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter came before the Court on Christopher Bernard
Robinson's pro se petition for the writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is a
state inmate at the Carson City Correctional Facility in
Carson City, Michigan. He alleges that he was wrongfully
re-convicted on a charge of assaulting, resisting, or
obstructing a police officer and that he is in custody on an
failed to exhaust state remedies for these claims, as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Accordingly, the
Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice.
petition and exhibits indicate that, in 1989, a state circuit
court jury in Washtenaw County, Michigan found Petitioner
guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. See
Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Ex. 2. On January 25, 1990,
the state trial judge sentenced Petitioner to prison for
twelve to thirty years. Id. On September 4, 1990,
Petitioner pleaded guilty in Ionia County, Michigan to
assault on a prison employee, and on October 29, 1990, an
Ionia County circuit judge sentenced Petitioner to prison for
two to four years, consecutive to his previous sentence.
Id., Ex. 3.
April 20, 2004, the Michigan Parole Board released Petitioner
on parole, but on April 20, 2005, Petitioner returned to
prison on a charge of violating the conditions of parole by
failing to register as a sex offender. According to
Petitioner, his two state sentences were then
18, 2011, the Parole Board once again released Petitioner on
parole. Petitioner remained on parole until April 23, 2013,
when state officials charged him with violating the
conditions of parole by assaulting, resisting, and
obstructing a police officer. Petitioner pleaded guilty to
violating the conditions of parole, see id., Ex. 4,
and on December 23, 2013, following a bench trial, a
Washtenaw County circuit court judge found Petitioner guilty
of assaulting, resisting, and obstructing a police officer.
Id., Ex. 5. The trial judge sentenced Petitioner to
a term of two to four years in prison for the crime.
appeal from his conviction, the Michigan Court of Appeals
ruled that Petitioner did not knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently waive his right to counsel because the trial
court failed to properly advise him of the risks of
self-representation. Accordingly, the Michigan Court of
Appeals vacated Petitioner's conviction and remanded his
case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Id., Ex. 6.
remand, the trial court conducted another trial and once
again found Petitioner guilty of assaulting, resisting, and
obstructing a police officer. On July 12, 2016, the trial
court re-sentenced Petitioner to two to four years in prison
with no sentencing credit. On November 14, 2016, however, the
trial court issued an amended judgment of sentence that
awarded Petitioner 917 days of sentencing credit.
filed his habeas corpus petition on October 10, 2017. He
claims that the Washtenaw County circuit court's amended
judgment of sentence was never processed and that, even
though state records indicate that he has three active
sentences, he served his sentences. He maintains that his
warden holds him in unlawful custody on expired sentences. He
seeks release from state custody and a transfer of custody to
the United States Marshal.
Petitioner did not pay the filing fee or apply for leave to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, the Court
grants him permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court, nevertheless, may not grant the writ of habeas
corpus unless Petitioner is "in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). In addition, the
Court must dismiss the petition if it plainly appears from
the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief. See Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts; Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198,
preliminary question is whether Petitioner exhausted state
remedies for his claims, as required by 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(1)(A), (c). The Supreme Court explained this
requirement in O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S.
838 (1999), stating that
[b]efore a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state
prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state
court. In other words, the state prisoner must give the state
courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he ...