United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
SAMUEL J. MATTHEWS, Petitioner,
JEREMY BUSH, Respondent.
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE HABEAS PETITION AND
DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO
APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter came before the Court on Samuel J. Matthews'
(“Matthews” or “Petitioner”) recent
letter to the Court. Pet., Dkt. 1. The letter was filed as a
habeas corpus petition because Matthews states in the letter
that he is being unfairly held at a correctional facility in
Jackson, Michigan. Before filing any petition for federal
habeas corpus relief, a prisoner must first pursue all
remedies available under state law. A petitioner must show
that he has “exhausted state remedies” before
being allowed to file for habeas corpus. Matthews has not
shown that he exhausted state remedies for this claim.
Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed.
was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property and
released on parole in April of 2015. Id., Page ID 5.
On January 22, 2018, Matthews was observed grabbing an
unidentified female by her coat collar and yelling at the
woman. Id., Page IDs 3-4. As a result, the Michigan
Parole Board charged Matthews with violating the conditions
of parole by: (1) violating state law by engaging in behavior
that was assaultive, abusive, threatening and/or intimidating
toward an unknown female; (2) engaging in behavior that was
assaultive, abusive, threatening and/or intimidating toward
an unknown female; and (3) refusing to submit to an alcohol
or drug test as ordered by his field agent. Id.,
Page ID 2.
arraignment on these charges on January 31, 2018, Matthews
pleaded guilty to the third charge. The case was then set for
a hearing on February 28, 2018. Matthews attempted to
withdraw his guilty plea at the hearing, but the
administrative law judge denied his request. The
administrative hearing continued at that point, and although
Matthews denied being the person who was observed
intimidating the unknown female, the judge found him guilty
of the second charge. The judge dismissed the first charge as
duplicative of the second charge. Id., Page IDs 3
and 5. On April 4, 2018, the Parole Board revoked
Matthews' parole for twelve months. The Parole Board will
reconsider the case on January 24, 2019. Id., Page
alleges in his habeas petition that he should not have to
serve one more year in prison and that he needs the
Court's help in being released at an earlier date.
Id., Page ID 1. He also contests some of the
administrative law judge's factual findings.
Id., Page IDs 1, 3-5.
has not specified the legal basis for his claim, but his
letter was properly filed as a habeas corpus petition because
it challenges the fact or duration of confinement and seeks a
speedier release from custody. Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The Court may grant the writ of
habeas corpus to individuals who are “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) and
2254(a). The Court, however, generally may not grant the writ
of habeas corpus under § 2254 unless it appears that the
applicant has exhausted available state-court remedies for
his or her claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1),
exhaustion rule also applies to habeas petitions filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. As explained by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit:
[u]nlike exhaustion under § 2254, exhaustion under
§ 2241 is not a statutory requirement. Compare
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), with Id. §
2241. Rather, in the § 2241 context, “decisional
law has superimposed such a requirement in order to
accommodate principles of federalism.” United
States ex rel. Scranton v. New York, 532 F.2d 292, 294
(2d Cir.1976) (citing Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241,
252-53, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886), and Fay v.
Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963));
cf. Fisher v. Rose, 757 F.2d 789, 792 (6th Cir.1985)
(noting that alleged speedy-trial violation challenged before
trial generally requires exhaustion).
Phillips v. Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton Cty.,
Ohio, 668 F.3d 804, 810 n.4 (6th Cir. 2012); see
also Collins v. Million 121 Fed.Appx. 628, 630 (6th Cir.
2005) (concluding that, regardless of whether the petitioner
filed his habeas petition under § 2254 or § 2241,
he was required first to exhaust his state-court remedies);
Reaves v. Hofbauer, 433 F.Supp.2d 833 (E.D. Mich.
2006) (“A state prisoner who files a habeas corpus
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must also comply
with the exhaustion requirement.”). Thus, whether
Matthews intended to file his petition under § 2254 or
under § 2241, he carries the burden of proving that he
exhausted state remedies for his claims.
exhaustion requirement is satisfied if the prisoner
“invok[es] one complete round of the State's
established appellate review process, ” including a
petition for discretionary review in the state supreme court,
“when that review is part of the ordinary appellate
review procedure in the State.” O'Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845, 847 (1999). So, to properly
exhaust state remedies, prisoners must fairly present the
factual and legal basis for each of their claims to the state
court of appeals and to the state supreme court before
raising their claims in a habeas corpus petition. Wagner
v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 414-15 (6th Cir. 2009).
Michigan, a state prisoner may challenge the revocation of
parole by filing a state complaint for the writ of habeas
corpus. Triplett v. Deputy Warden, 142 Mich.App.
774, 779 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985) (citing In re
Casella, 313 Mich. 393; 21 N.W.2d 175 (1946)).
“[T]here is no limitation on the time in which a
complaint for habeas corpus must be filed, as long as the
prisoner will be in custody at the time judgment becomes
effective.” Id. at 779 (citing In re
Rankin, 330 Mich. 91; 47 N.W.2d 28 (1951)).
of denial in habeas corpus proceedings are not appealable as
of right, ” but prisoners may renew their claims by
filing an original complaint in the Michigan Court of
Appeals. Id. at 779-80 (citing Parshay v. Warden
of Marquette Prison,30 Mich.App. 556, 558; 186 N.W.2d
859 (1971)). Prisoners who are unsuccessful in the Michigan
Court of ...