United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE #
5:17-CV-11510/5:18-CV- 10994, DENYING THE MOTION FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
CORBETT O'MEARA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Geeter, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Baraga
Correctional Facility in Baraga, Michigan, filed two
petitions for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, in two separate cases. Petitioner challenges his
conviction for armed robbery, M.C.L.A. 750.529; and being a
fourth felony habitual offender, M.C.L.A. 769.12. For the
reasons stated below, the Court consolidates petitioner's
two petitions into a single case. The motion to appoint
counsel is DENIED. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is
was convicted following a jury trial in the Oakland County
Circuit Court. This Court recites verbatim the relevant facts
relied upon by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which are
presumed correct on habeas review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(e)(1). See Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d
410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009):
Defendant's conviction stems from a Halloween 2008
robbery of a business in Oak Park. An employee, Janice Moore,
and a customer, Cornell Barnes, were present at the time of
the robbery and both identified defendant as the perpetrator.
Defendant approached the counter and announced that he was
robbing the store. He also passed Moore a note that read,
“This is a robbery and I have a gun. If you don't
give me all the money right now innocent customers and staff
will get shot during this altercation.” The police
crime lab discovered a fingerprint belonging to defendant on
the note. Moore identified defendant in a photographic lineup
in December 2008, at the preliminary examination, and again
at trial. Barnes identified defendant in a corporeal lineup
at the Oakland County Jail in January 2009 and at trial. A
jury convicted defendant of armed robbery, MCL 750.529.
Defendant now appeals as of right.
People v. Geeter, No. 292850, 2011 WL 4949697, at *
1 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2011).
conviction was affirmed on appeal. Id., lv. den. 808
N.W.2d 785 (2012).
filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment,
which was denied. People v. Geeter, No.
2009-225214-FC (Oakland Cty.Cir.Ct., Mar. 21, 2016). The
Michigan appellate courts denied petitioner leave to appeal.
People v. Geeter, No. 333170 (Mich.Ct.App. Oct. 21,
2016); lv. den. 895 N.W.2d 527 (2017).
petition filed in Case # 18-CV-10994, petitioner claims he
filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
Chippewa County Circuit Court, in which he sought the
production of a transcript on a probable cause hearing
conducted in the 45thDistrict Court in Oak Park,
Michigan. Petitioner indicates that the petition was denied
on April 10, 2017 in Case # 17-14631-AH. The Michigan
appellate courts denied petitioner leave to appeal.
Geeter v. Chippewa Corr. Facility Warden, No. 338085
(Mich.Ct.App. Jul. 26, 2017); lv. Den. 908 N.W.2d
289 (Mich. 2018).
17-CV-11510, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus, in which he appears to raise the following claims:
(1) petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights were violated
because there was no probable cause to issue the arrest
warrant and complaint, (2) the prosecutor violated
petitioner's due process rights by failing to disclose
exculpatory evidence to the defense that a probable cause
hearing had been conducted to obtain the defective arrest
warrant in the Oak Park District Court, (3) the information
filed in the circuit court did not give petitioner fair
notice of the charges against him, and (4) trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to move to quash the arrest warrant
filed an answer in opposition to the petition for writ of
habeas corpus filed in Case # 17-CV-11510, which is construed
as a motion to dismiss on the basis that the claims are
barred by procedural default. See Alvarez v. Straub,
64 F.Supp.2d 686, 689 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
# 18-CV-10994, petitioner again raises a claim that the
prosecutor failed to disclose that a probable cause hearing
was conducted. Petitioner also appears to argue that his due
process rights were violated because the probable cause
hearing was not transcribed. The Court has not ordered an
answer from respondent in this case because the claims appear
duplicative to the claims raised by petitioner in his first
The Court consolidates petitioner's two petitions into a
Court consolidates both cases into a single petition because
both petitions challenge the same conviction and raise
roughly the same claims. A federal district court has the
discretion to consolidate different state convictions into a
single habeas petition. See e.g. Coleman v.
Mitchell, 244 F.3d 533, 538 (6th Cir. 2001).
the Court consolidates Case # 17-CV-11510 and 18-CV-10994.
Case # 17-CV-11510 shall be designated the lead case. All
future filings shall be made in Case # 17-CV-11510.
The motion to appoint ...