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.

Stoll v. Chippewa County Prosecuting Attorney

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division

January 9, 2020

Nicholas Stoll, Petitioner,
v.
Chippewa County Prosecuting Attorney, Respondent.

          OPINION

          Janet T. Neff United States District Judge

         This is a habeas corpus action brought by a pretrial detainee under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Atkins v. Michigan, 644 F.2d 543, 546 n.1 (6th Cir. 1981) (holding that, where a pretrial detainee challenges the constitutionality of his or her pretrial-or prejudgment-detention, he or she must pursue relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 cases (permitting application of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases to § 2241 petitions); and see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has the duty to “screen out” petitions that lack merit on their face). A dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed because the petition has been rendered moot and, therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction.

         Discussion

         I. Factual allegations

         Petitioner Nicholas Stoll is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Charles Egeler Reception & Guidance Center (RGC) in Jackson County, Michigan. At the time Petitioner filed the petition, however, he was detained in the Chippewa County Jail pending his prosecution on methamphetamine offenses. Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere[1] in the Chippewa County Circuit Court to operating or maintaining a lab involving methamphetamine, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7401c. On December 3, 2019, the court sentenced Petitioner as a second habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.10, to a prison term of 3 to 30 years.

         On September 23, 2019, while he was detained in the Chippewa County Jail pending his prosecution, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition. The petition raised six grounds for relief, as follows:

I. On July 11, 2018, police broke into Petitioner's personal residence with no search warrant, Petitioner told them they could not search his home without a warrant. Petitioner was never given a warrant before, during or after the search.
II. The affiant included false statements in a sworn affidavit in support of a warrant to mislead the judge or magistrate.
III. Affidavit has no eyewitness or report of any crime to [permit] two separate houses to be searched on one warrant.
IV. Officers failed to properly execute search warrant by seizing items/property from a different location other than the specific place authorized by judge for place to be searched.
V. Caller giving tip, affidavit never identified caller or asked any questions, dialogue of tip indicates caller is an employee who is relaying second hand information of an incident that took place with another employee, not the actual caller, and it reporting this three days later to Officer Donnay, who relayed it to Detective Stemky, Who then relayed it to affiant James Mcleod.
VI. Foul Play, corrupted law enforcement.

(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6-10.)

         II. ...


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.