United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
CALVIN L. LIPTROT, Petitioner,
CONNIE HORTON,  Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER (1) SUMMARILY DENYING THE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. (2) DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY. AND (3) DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA
HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN JUDGE.
L. Liptrot, ("Petitioner"), confined at the
Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan, filed
a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. In his application, filed pro se, petitioner
challenges his conviction for operating a vehicle while
intoxicated causing death, Mich. Comp. Laws §
257.625(4)(a), failure to stop at the scene of an accident
resulting in serious impairment or death, Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 257.617(3), and being a fourth felony habitual
offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.12. Respondent filed a
motion to dismiss the petition, on the ground that it was not
timely filed in accordance with the statute of limitations
contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1). For the reasons
stated below, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
summarily denied with prejudice.
pleaded nolo contendere in the Kent County Circuit Court and
was sentenced to ten to forty years in prison.
review of petitioner's conviction ended in the state
courts on October 22, 2014, when the Michigan Supreme Court
denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal
following the affirmance of his conviction by the Michigan
Court of Appeals. People v. Liptrot, 497 Mich. 882,
854 N.W.2d 712 (2014).
December 7, 2015, petitioner filed a motion for modification
of restitution with the trial court, which was denied on
December 15, 2015. (ECF 7-l, PgID46).
August 3, 2016, petitioner filed a motion to correct an
invalid sentence in the trial court, which was denied on
August 4, 2016. (ECF 7-1, Pg ID 46).
is no indication that petitioner ever appealed the denial of
habeas petition is signed and dated October 4,
filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas
corpus on the ground that the petition was not filed in
compliance with the statute of limitations. In the statute of
limitations context, "dismissal is appropriate only if a
complaint clearly shows the claim is out of time."
Harris v. New York, 186 F.3d 243, 250 (2nd
Cir.1999); See also Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d
412, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2007).
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
("AEDPA"), which was signed into law on April 24,
1996, amended the habeas corpus statute in several respects,
one of which was to mandate a statute of limitations for
habeas actions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) imposes a one-year
statute of limitations upon petitions for habeas relief:
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of--
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time ...