United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER TRANSFERRING THIS CASE TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
A. GOLDSMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter has come before the Court on petitioner Charles
Holbrook's applications for the writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pets. (Dkts. 1, 3, 4). Holbrook
is a state inmate at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in
St. Louis, Michigan. He is challenging the following Kent
County, Michigan convictions: two counts of possessing child
sexually abusive material, Mich. Comp. Laws
§750.145c(4); two counts of allowing a child to engage
in child sexually abusive activity, Mich. Comp. Laws
§750. 145c(2); two counts of producing child sexually
abusive material, Mich. Comp. Laws §750.145c(2); one
count of accosting a child for immoral purposes, Mich. Comp.
Laws §750.145a, and one count of being a felon in
possession of a firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224f.
See People v. Holbrook, No. 298869, 2011 WL 5064266,
at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2011) (per curiam).
Holbrook was sentenced to prison for fifteen to forty years
for four of the counts and shorter concurrent terms for the
other counts. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed his
convictions, see id., and the Michigan Supreme Court
denied leave to appeal. See People v. Holbrook, 817
N.W.2d 78 (Mich. 2012).
October 16, 2019, Holbrook filed his habeas corpus petition
(Dkt. 1.) He did not list any grounds for relief, but he asks
for a hearing and for a transfer to federal custody. 10/16/19
Pet. at 14 (Dkt. 1).
second petition filed in this case on November 1, 2019,
Holbrook asks the Court to declare that his Kent County
convictions are illegal. 11/1/2019 Pet. at 1 (Dkt. 3). He
also alleges that he has never been allowed to defend himself
in any court, that there has been no crime, and that the
State has no evidence of any crime. Id., at 2.
Additionally, he contends that there has not been a first
habeas action in any court and that there is no “second
or successive” petition. Id., at 3.
third petition filed in this case on November 12, 2019,
Holbrook appears to be saying that the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals has denied him relief in twenty-four cases.
11/12/2019 Pet. at 1 (Dkt. 4) He contends that his petitions
for relief in the Sixth Circuit were “shot down”
and that the Sixth Circuit “does nothing.”
has filed more than two dozen habeas corpus petitions in
federal court. See Holbrook v. Unknown Parties, No.
1:17-cv-807, Order, at. 3-5 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2019)
(collecting cases). Therefore, a threshold question is
whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain
Holbrook's current petitions, because “[t]he
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(‘AEDPA') limits the authority of federal courts to
grant relief to individuals who previously filed a habeas
petition” in federal district court. In re
Tibbetts, 869 F.3d 403, 405 (6th Cir. 2017),
cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 661 (2018). Among
other things, AEDPA “requires petitioners challenging
state court judgments to seek authorization in a federal
appeals court before filing a ‘second or
successive' petition in district court.”
Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and In re
Stansell, 828 F.3d 412, 414 (6th Cir. 2015)). The Sixth
Circuit has noted the following:
Not every numerically second petition is ‘second or
successive' for purposes of AEDPA. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 487, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d
542 (2000) (a petition filed after a mixed petition has been
dismissed before the district court has adjudicated any claim
is not a second or successive petition); Stewart v.
Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 118 S.Ct. 1618, 140
L.Ed.2d 849 (1998) (a numerically second petition alleging a
claim that was contained in a first petition, but dismissed
as unripe, is not second or successive)[.]
In re Bowen, 436 F.3d 699, 704 (6th Cir. 2006).
Nevertheless, if a numerically second petition is
“second or successive, ” and if it was
“filed in the district court without prior
authorization from the appropriate court of appeals, the
district court must transfer the document to the court of
appeals.” In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th
2013, Holbrook filed a habeas corpus petition in which he
challenged his convictions on grounds that the evidence at
trial was insufficient and the trial court erroneously
admitted certain testimony and evidence at trial. United
States District Judge Bernard A. Friedman denied the petition
on the merits. See Holbrook v. Rapelje,
2:13-cv-13137 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 1, 2016). Therefore,
Holbrook's current applications for the writ of habeas
corpus are “second or successive” petitions under
§ 2244(b). Furthermore, he has not acquired permission
to file a second or successive habeas petition, and this
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive
habeas petition without pre-authorization from the
appropriate Court of Appeals. Franklin v. Jenkins,
839 F.3d 465, 475 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137
S.Ct. 2188 (2017).
the Court orders the Clerk of the Court to transfer this case
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ...