United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
H. CLELAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Martin King, a West Virginia prisoner, filed a petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No.
1.) Petitioner pleaded guilty in the Wayne Circuit Court to
second-degree murder and commission of a felony with a
firearm. He was sentenced to 18 to 40 years for the murder
conviction and a consecutive two years for the firearm
conviction. Petitioner will begin serving his Michigan
sentence after he completes serving an unspecified sentence
in West Virginia.
receipt of a habeas corpus petition, a federal court must
“promptly examine [the] petition to determine ‘if
it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any
exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief.'” Crump v. Lafler, 657 F.3d 393,
396 n. 2 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Rules Governing § 2254
Cases, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). “Federal
courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas
petition that appears legally insufficient on its face . . .
.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856
(1994). Indeed, “the District Court has a duty to
screen out a habeas corpus petition which should be dismissed
for lack of merit on its face.” Allen v.
Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970).
undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the court
concludes that Petitioner's claim does not entitle him to
habeas relief and the petition must be summarily denied.
See McIntosh v. Booker, 300 F.Supp.2d 498, 499 (E.D.
Mich. 2004). Petitioner's only claim for relief is that
he is entitled to credit on his Michigan sentence for the
time he served in jail in West Virginia on pending charges
there after Michigan filed a fugitive from justice warrant.
This claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review and is
otherwise without merit.
federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus only if the
petitioner “is 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). Therefore,
violations of state law and procedure, which do not infringe
specific federal constitutional protections, are not
cognizable claims under Section 2254. Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). A prisoner has no
right under the federal constitution to earn or receive
sentencing credits. Moore v. Hofbauer, 144 F.Supp.2d
877, 882 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citing Hansard v.
Barrett, 980 F.2d 1059, 1062 (6th Cir. 1992)). Because
Petitioner's claim challenges the application of a
Michigan sentencing credit law, the claim is not cognizable
on federal habeas review. See Howard v. White, 76
Fed.Appx. 52, 53 (6th Cir. 2003); Dowdy v. Sherry,
No. 06-10735, 2008 WL 5188827, *12 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 10,
claim is also without merit because Petitioner is not
entitled to credit for the time served in a West Virginia
jail on West Virginia charges, regardless of whether a
Michigan detainer was filed. In People v. Adkins,
449 N.W.2d 400 (1989), the Michigan Supreme Court found
persons held in another jurisdiction on detainers are not
entitled to such sentencing credit:
[T]he mere placement of a hold or detainer on a prisoner-an
indication to the authorities in the jurisdiction which has
custody of the defendant that there are charges pending
against him in another jurisdiction, and that the authorities
from that jurisdiction would like to be notified before he is
released-does not “convert” the time the
defendant is serving in the first jurisdiction into time
served "for the offense" of which he is later
convicted in the requesting jurisdiction.
The fact that such a hold or detainer has been entered does
not mean that the authorities in the requesting jurisdiction
gain something akin to “constructive custody” of
the defendant; nor does it mean that the defendant is no
longer incarcerated solely because of the unrelated offense
in the other jurisdiction. It simply means that the
authorities in the jurisdiction which has custody of the
defendant have agreed not to release him without notice to
the “holding” jurisdiction, and will turn him
over to such authorities upon request. In short, whether a
hold has, or could have, entered against the defendant is
irrelevant for purposes of determining how much time the
defendant has served “for the offense of which he is
Id. at 406-07.
petition for writ of habeas corpus, therefore, will be
summarily denied because it fails to state a cognizable claim
and is otherwise without merit. Moreover, Petitioner is not
entitled to a certificate of appealability because he has not
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). ...