Flinn v. Burton, No. 2:2018cv11764 - Document 6 (E.D. Mich. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Dismissing Without Prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)

Download PDF
Flinn v. Burton Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DOUGLAS R. FLINN, #971215, Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:18-CV-11764 HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW v. DEWAYNE BURTON, Respondent. ___________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY The Court has before it Michigan prisoner Douglas R. Flinn’s pro se habeas case filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. When he instituted this action, Petitioner did not submit a proper habeas petition listing his claims nor did he pay the required $5.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Rule 3 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. The Court, therefore, issued a deficiency order on June 14, 2018 requiring Petitioner to submit a petition listing his claims and to either pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed in forma pauperis application. The order provided that if he did not do so within 21 days, his case would be dismissed. The time for listing the habeas claims and submitting either the filing fee or the required information has elapsed and Petitioner has failed to correct the deficiencies. Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court makes no determination as to the merits of the petition. This case is CLOSED. Should Petitioner wish to seek federal habeas relief, he must file new habeas case listing his specific claims along with payment of the filing fee or an in forma pauperis application. This case will not be reopened. 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. § 2253(c)(2). When a federal court denies relief on procedural grounds without addressing the merits of a habeas petition, 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 district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness of the Court’s procedural ruling. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Arthur J. Tarnow ARTHUR J. TARNOW SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: August 8, 2018 2

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.