United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JERMAINE D. HILL, Petitioner,
v.
RANDEE REWERTS, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER (1) SUMMARILY DENYING THE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (2) DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY, AND (3) DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Jermaine
D. Hill, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Alger
Correctional Facility in Munising, Michigan, filed a petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner challenges his conviction for first-degree murder,
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316, assault with intent to
commit murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.83, and possession
of a firearm in the commission of a felony, Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 750.227b. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the
petition, on the ground that it was not timely filed in
accordance with the statute of limitations contained in 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1). For the reasons stated below, the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily denied with
prejudice.
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner
was convicted following a jury trial in the Detroit
Recorder's Court.
Direct
review of petitioner's conviction ended in the state
courts on December 30, 1998, when the Michigan Supreme Court
denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal
following the affirmance of his conviction by the Michigan
Court of Appeals. People v. Hill, 459 Mich. 933, 615
N.W.2d 735 (1998).
Petitioner
filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with
the state trial court on January 27, 2017. (See ECF No. 9-1,
Page ID 73). After the trial court and the Michigan Court of
Appeals denied petitioner post-conviction relief, collateral
review of petitioner's conviction ended in the Michigan
courts on October 30, 2018, when the Michigan Supreme Court
denied petitioner leave to appeal the denial of his
post-conviction motion. People v. Hill, 503 Mich.
887, 919 N.W.2d 261 (2018).
On
April 30, 2019, petitioner filed his habeas petition with
this Court.[1]
II.
DISCUSSION
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).
28
U.S.C. § 2244(d) imposes a one-year statute of
limitations upon petitions for habeas relief:
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run 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
prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
originally recognized by the Supreme Court if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims ...