United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S PENDING MOTIONS,
DISMISSING THE PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
H. CLELAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court on Petitioner William Larry
Kulick's pro se habeas corpus petition. Also
pending before the court is Petitioner's motion regarding
the alleged infliction of cruel and unusual punishment in
jail (ECF No. 3) and motion for discovery. (ECF No. 6.) For
the reasons given below, the habeas petition will be
dismissed without prejudice and the motions will be denied.
alleges that after he was charged with a driving offense, he
posted bond and was told that the date of the next court
proceeding would be mailed to him. Apparently, he did not
receive notice of the next court date, and a warrant for his
arrest was issued. He posted bond again and appeared as
directed at the subsequent hearing.
to the habeas petition indicate that, on July 16, 2019,
Petitioner pleaded guilty in state district court to two
counts of contempt. He was then sentenced to 93 days in jail
for the first count and 20 days in jail for the second count.
He was serving his sentence in the Ogemaw County Correctional
Facility when he filed the instant habeas corpus petition on
August 26, 2019.
claims that the state court deprived him of due process by
failing to notify him of the next court date after his
initial appearance in court. He seeks release from custody,
monetary compensation for the expenses he incurred during the
state-court proceeding, and dismissal of his state case. He
also wants to penalize the parties involved in his state
motion alleging cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment, Petitioner complains about the conditions in the
jail where he is or was incarcerated. He contends that
nothing was done about the swelling in his joints or the
“cracks” in his fingers that developed during his
incarceration and that medical personnel at the jail do not
properly handle blood.
motion for discovery, Petitioner seeks a videotaped recording
of the contempt proceeding that was held on July 16, 2019. He
also seeks transcripts and all “discoverable
information” related to that proceeding and earlier
preliminary question in any habeas case is whether the
petitioner exhausted state remedies for his claims. The
federal doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies requires
state prisoners to present all their claims to the state
courts before raising their claims in a federal habeas corpus
petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1);
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842
(1999). This requirement is satisfied if a 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, 526 U.S. at 845, 847. Thus, to be
properly exhausted, each habeas claim must have been fairly
presented to the state court of appeals and to the state
supreme court. Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 414
(6th Cir. 2009). Federal district courts ordinarily must
dismiss a habeas petition containing any unexhausted claims.
Davila v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 2058, 2064 (2017)
(quoting Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 522
has not alleged that he exhausted any state remedies for his
due process claim. To do so, he could have filed an
application for leave to appeal in Ogemaw County Circuit
Court. See Mich. Ct. R. 7.103(B). Although the
21-day deadline for filing an application for leave to appeal
apparently has expired, a late application may be filed up to
six months after entry of the judgment. See Mich.
Ct. R. 7.105(A), (G).
remedy for challenging Petitioner's detention is a state
complaint for the writ of habeas corpus. See Mich.
Ct. R. 3.303. “[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.” Triplett v. Deputy Warden, 371
N.W.2d 862, 865 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). As further explained
[t]he function of a writ of habeas corpus is to test the
legality of the detention of any person restrained of his
liberty. As a general rule, every person committed, detained,
confined or restrained of his liberty for any criminal or
supposed criminal matter may seek a ...