United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITONER'S APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING PETITIONER'S
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (14-12440), DECLINING TO
ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING IFP ON
L. LUDINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Terrance Bailey, a state prisoner at the Macomb Correctional
Facility in Lenox Township, Michigan, recently filed a
“certificate of prisoner account activity” (ECF
No. 2) and a “petition for relief from
[void] judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) &
(4).” ECF No. 1. The Rule 60(b) petition seeks relief
from this Court's opinion and judgment dismissing
Bailey's 2014 habeas corpus petition as time-barred.
See Bailey v. MacLaren, No. 14-cv-12440 (E.D. Mich.
Feb. 20, 2015). Bailey claims that the Court mistakenly
failed to consider the state trial court's lack of
subject matter jurisdiction when the Court dismissed his
habeas petition. This claim is untimely and meritless.
Accordingly, the Rule 60(b) petition will be denied.
Additionally, the application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) will be denied.
is serving lengthy prison terms for two Wayne County Circuit
Court cases. In case number 2006-006406-01, he was convicted
of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC),
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(c), one count of
second-degree CSC, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520c(1)(c),
and one count of kidnapping, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.349.
The trial court sentenced Bailey to concurrent prison terms
of 30 to 50 years for the kidnapping and first-degree CSC
convictions and 10 to 15 years for the second-degree CSC
number 2006-008894-01, Bailey was convicted of two counts of
first-degree CSC and one count of kidnapping. The trial court
sentenced Bailey as a fourth habitual offender to three
concurrent terms of 40 to 60 years in prison.
Michigan Court of Appeals consolidated Bailey's cases on
appeal and affirmed his convictions in both cases, but
remanded for re-sentencing in one case and for correction of
the judgment of sentence in the other case. See People v.
Bailey, Nos. 276424 and 276593, 2009 WL 1439112 (Mich.
Ct. App. May 21, 2009). On July 2, 2009, the trial court
re-sentenced Bailey, and on October 26, 2009, the Michigan
Supreme Court denied Bailey's applications for leave to
appeal. See People v. Bailey, 773 N.W.2d 674 (Mich.
2009); People v. Bailey, 773 N.W.2d 694 (Mich.
sought further post-conviction relief without success in
state court, and in 2014, he filed a petition for the writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claimed that:
I. The Michigan Supreme Court denied [him] his Fourteenth
Amendment rights to be heard where [he] demonstrated the
circuit judge was without subject matter jurisdiction, and
the prosecutor was without authorization to proceed in filing
the Information where no return to circuit court was
certified and transmitted to the court which [he] was to
appear before after his preliminary examination;
II. The Michigan Supreme Court denied [him] the right to be
heard where [he] demonstrated a very strong possibility of
his innocence, violating his Eight (sic) Amendment rights
forbidding cruel and usual punishment; and
III. [He] was denied effective assistance of trial and
appellate counsel violating his Sixth Amendment right to
Bailey v. Maclaren, No. 14-cv-12440 (E.D. Mich. June
23, 2014) (ECF No. 1, PageID. 12).
February 20, 2015, this Court granted the State's motion
for summary judgment and dismissed the habeas petition due to
Bailey's failure to comply with the one-year statute of
limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). See
Bailey v. MacLaren, No. 14-cv-12440 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 20,
2015) (ECF No. 10). Bailey applied for a certificate of
appealability in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit, but the Sixth Circuit denied his application
and his petition for rehearing. See Bailey v.
MacLaren, No. 15-1363 (6th Cir. Aug. 17, 2015, and Jan.
then pursued additional state remedies without success, and
on November 22, 2019, he filed his petition seeking relief
from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) and (4). He claims
that he is being detained pursuant to a void judgment because
(1) the state circuit court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction in his criminal case and (2) the proper
procedures were not followed before his criminal case was
transferred from state district court to ...