Jones v. Booker, No. 2:2012cv11505 - Document 12 (E.D. Mich. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER granting 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL.. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Booker Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CRAIG JONES, #124942, Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-11505 HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF v. RAYMOND BOOKER, Respondent. ________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL I. Introduction Michigan prisoner Craig Jones (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting that he is being held in violation of his constitutional rights. He pleaded guilty to armed robbery, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.529, assault with intent to commit murder, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.83, and two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.520b, in the Wayne County Circuit Court in 1990 and was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 769.12, to 40 to 60 years imprisonment. In his pleadings, Petitioner raises claims concerning the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel, and the validity of his sentence. The matter is before the Court on Respondent’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the petition for failure to comply with the one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas actions. Having reviewed the matter, the Court finds that the habeas petition is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and must be dismissed. The Dockets.Justia.com Court further finds that neither a certificate of appealability nor leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are warranted. II. Facts and Procedural History Petitioner’s convictions arise from his armed robbery, stabbing, and sexual assault of a woman in Livonia, Michigan on May 25, 1990. Petitioner tendered his guilty plea on June 21, 1990 and the trial court imposed sentence on July 31, 1990. Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal challenging his sentence with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which modified his sentence from 45 to 60 years imprisonment to 40 to 60 years imprisonment. People v. Jones, No. 134618 (Mich. Ct. App. April 3, 1992). Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied in a standard order. People v. Jones, 441 Mich. 871, 494 N.W.2d 749 (Oct. 30, 1992). On or about August 19, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment with the state trial court raising the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and sentencing claims presented on habeas review. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Petitioner had not shown cause and prejudice under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D)(3) for his failure to raise the claims on direct appeal. People v. Jones, No. 90-006501 (Wayne Co. Cir. Ct. April 20, 2010). Petitioner filed a delayed application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which was denied “for failure to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).” People v. Jones, No. 302579 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2011). Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was similarly denied. People v. Jones, 490 Mich. 1002, 807 N.W.2d 320 (Jan. 30, 2012). Petitioner filed his undated federal habeas petition on April 4, 2012. Respondent filed the 2 instant motion for summary judgment on October 9, 2012. Petitioner has not filed a reply to the motion. III. Discussion The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., governs the filing date for this action because Petitioner filed his petition after the AEDPA’s effective date. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). The AEDPA includes a one-year period of limitations for habeas petitions brought by prisoners challenging state court judgments. The statute provides: (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 initially 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 presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. (2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). A habeas petition filed outside the proscribed time period must be dismissed. See Isham v. Randle, 226 F.3d 691, 694-95 (6th Cir. 2000) (dismissing case filed 13 days after the limitations period expired); Wilson v. Birkett, 192 F. Supp. 2d 763, 765 (E.D. Mich. 2002). 3 Petitioner’s convictions became final before the AEDPA’s April 24, 1996 effective date. Prisoners whose convictions became final before the AEDPA’s effective date are given a one-year grace period in which to file their federal habeas petitions. See Jurado v. Burt, 337 F.3d 638, 640 (6th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Petitioner was required to file his federal habeas petition on or before April 24, 1997, excluding any time during which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or collateral review was pending in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Petitioner did not file his state court motion for relief from judgment until 2009. Thus, the one-year limitations period had expired well before Petitioner sought state post-conviction review. A state court post-conviction motion that is filed following the expiration of the limitations period cannot toll that period because there is no period remaining to be tolled. See Hargrove v. Brigano, 300 F.3d 717, 718 n. 1 (6th Cir. 2002); Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Jurado, 337 F.3d at 641. Petitioner’s state post-conviction proceedings did not toll the running of the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the AEDPA’s limitations period does not begin to run anew after the completion of state post-conviction proceedings. See Searcy v. Carter, 246 F.3d 515, 519 (6th Cir. 2001). Petitioner has not shown that the State created an impediment to the filing of his federal habeas petition, nor has he shown that his claims are based upon newly-discovered evidence or newly-created retroactively-applicable rights which would warrant habeas relief. His petition is therefore untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the habeas statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional bar and is subject to equitable tolling. See Holland v. Florida, _ U.S. _, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2560 (2010). The Supreme Court has further verified that a habeas petitioner is entitled to 4 equitable tolling “only if he [or she] shows ‘(1) that he [or she] has been pursuing his [or her] rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his [or her] way' and prevented timely filing.” Id. at 2562 (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)); see also Robertson v. Simpson, 624 F.3d 781, 783-84 (6th Cir. 2010). A petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that she is entitled to equitable tolling. Allen v. Yukins, 366 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2004). “Typically, equitable tolling applied only when a litigant’s failure to meet a legally-mandated deadline unavoidably arose from circumstances beyond that litigant’s control.” Jurado, 337 F.3d at 642 (quoting Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, Inc., 209 F.3d 552, 560 (6th Cir. 2000)). Petitioner makes no such showing. Moreover, the fact that he is untrained in the law, is (or was) proceeding without a lawyer, or may have been unaware of the statute of limitations for a certain time does not warrant tolling. See Allen, 366 F.3d at 403 (ignorance of the law does not justify tolling); Rodriguez v. Elo, 195 F. Supp. 2d 934, 936 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (the law is “replete with instances which firmly establish that ignorance of the law, despite a litigant’s pro se status, is no excuse” for failure to follow legal requirements); Holloway v. Jones, 166 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1189 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (lack of professional legal assistance does not justify tolling); Sperling v. White, 30 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1254 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (citing cases stating that ignorance of the law, illiteracy, and lack of legal assistance do not justify tolling). Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to equitable tolling under Holland. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that a credible claim of actual innocence may equitably toll the one-year statute of limitations. See Souter v. Jones, 395 F.3d 577, 588-90 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Holloway, 166 F. Supp. 2d at 1190. As explained in Souter, 5 to support a claim of actual innocence, a petitioner in a collateral proceeding “must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him [or her].” Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327-28 (1995)); see also House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 537-39 (2006). A valid claim of actual innocence requires a petitioner “to support his [or her] allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence – whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness account, or critical physical evidence – that was not presented at trial.” Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324. Furthermore, actual innocence means “factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency.” Bousley, 523 U.S. at 623. Petitioner makes no such showing. Moreover, his guilty plea belies any actual innocence claim. See, e.g., Loving v. Mahaffey, 27 F. App’x 925, 926 (10th Cir. 2001) (noting that claim of actual innocence is difficult to establish, particularly when defendant pleads guilty); Catala v. Bennett, 273 F. Supp. 2d 468, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (same). Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year period. His petition is untimely and must be dismissed. IV. Conclusion Based upon the foregoing discussion, the Court concludes that Petitioner failed to file his habeas petition within the one-year limitations period established by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), that he has not demonstrated entitlement to statutory or equitable tolling, and that the statute of limitations precludes habeas review of his claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Before Petitioner may appeal the Court’s decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 6 § 2253(c)(2). When a court denies a habeas claim on the merits, the substantial showing threshold is met if the petitioner demonstrates that reasonable jurists would find the court’s assessment of the constitutional claim debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). When a court denies relief on procedural grounds without addressing the merits, a certificate of appealability should issue if it is shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petitioner states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling. Id. Jurists of reason would not find the Court’s procedural ruling in this case debatable. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court also DENIES Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because an appeal cannot be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). IT IS SO ORDERED. S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: December 12, 2012 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
