Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mazzio v. Michigan Department of Corrections

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

January 8, 2020

JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER MAZZIO, Petitioner,
v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Joseph Christopher Mazzio, (“Petitioner”), currently on parole supervision with the Michigan Department of Corrections, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his pro se application, petitioner challenges his conviction for assault with intent to commit murder, M.C.L.A. § 750.83. Petitioner also filed a motion for equitable tolling.

         The Court denies the motion for equitable tolling and summarily dismisses the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, because it was not timely filed in accordance with the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1) and a late petition cannot be saved by equitable or statutory tolling.

         I. Background

         Petitioner was found guilty following a jury trial in the Oakland County Circuit Court. Petitioner was initially sentenced to eighty eight months to thirty years in prison.

         Petitioner's conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals. People v. Mazzio, No. 314685, 2014 WL 2218974 (Mich. Ct. App. May 27, 2014). Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which resulted in his case being remanded back to the Oakland County Circuit Court for the trial court judge to consider whether a different sentence would have been imposed in light of the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (2015), which invalidated the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines. People v. Mazzio, 498 Mich. 902, 870 N.W.2d 711 (2015).

         On July 25, 2016, petitioner was re-sentenced to seventy two months to thirty years in prison. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the new sentence. People v. Mazzio, No. 334213, 2017 WL 6346060 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2017). On July 27, 2018, the Michigan Supreme Court denied petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Mazzio, 502 Mich. 938, 915 N.W.2d 467 (2018).

         Petitioner, who is now on parole, filed his habeas petition and his motion for equitable tolling with this Court on November 25, 2019.

         II. Discussion

         Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts “provides that district courts ‘must promptly examine' state prisoner habeas petitions and must dismiss the petition ‘[i]f it plainly appears ... that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.'” Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 207 (2006). This Court must determine whether the one-year statute of limitations in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), bars substantive review of petitioner's claims. This Court is “permitted ... to consider, sua sponte, the timeliness of a state prisoner's habeas petition.” Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. at 209. Before acting on its own initiative to dismiss a state prisoner's habeas petition as untimely, a federal district court must give the parties fair notice and an opportunity to present their positions regarding the timeliness issue. Id. at 210. Petitioner in his motion for equitable tolling acknowledges that his petition was filed beyond the one year period but argues that any untimely filing should be equitably tolled based on petitioner suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Petitioner has thus been given an opportunity to address the limitations issue. See Plummer v. Warren, 463 Fed.Appx. 501, 505 (6th Cir. 2012); see also Stewart v. Harry, No. 17-1494, 2017 WL 9249946, at * 1 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017).

         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).

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, became effective on April 24, 1996, and it governs the filing date for the habeas application in this case because petitioner filed his petition after the AEDPA's effective date. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). The AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to include a new, one-year period of limitations for habeas petitions brought by prisoners challenging state court judgments. See Vroman v. Brigano, 346 F.3d 598, 601 (6th Cir. 2003). The one-year statute of limitations runs 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 for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.