Carter v. Whitmer et al, No. 2:2021cv13059 - Document 7 (E.D. Mich. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Summarily Dismissing the Complaint and Denying as Moot 6 MOTION to Intervene filed by Terrance Richardson. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dockets.Justia.com KENNETH CARTER GRETCHEN WHITMER, HEIDI WASHINGTON, and BRIAN SHIPMAN 2:21-CV-13059-TGB-JJCG OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT THE MOTION FOR INTERVENTION pro se Carter v. Whitmer et al Doc. 7 I. BACKGROUND id See Id Id II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Grinter v. Knight Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly Ashcroft v. Iqbal Twombly Id. Twombly Neitzke v. Williams Id Pineda v Hamilton Cty., Ohio Robertson v. Lucas III. DISCUSSION A. Heck v. Humphrey; Wilkinson v. Dotson Preiser v. Rodriguez v. Humphrey Heck not Id Heck if Wilkinson v. Dotson would not necessarily Id Heck’s See Hill v. Snyder B. The Merits 1. The Sixth Amendment Claim Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado Duncan v. Louisiana, Robinson v. Woods Apprendi v. New Jersey Apprendi Apprendi Blakely v. Washington Apprendi United States v. West Blakely Alleyne v. United States Apprendi See Apprendi Id. See 2. The Eighth Amendment Claim Harmelin v. Michigan, United States v. Watkins Ewing v. California, Harmelin, Harmelin nonviolent Id Austin v. Jackson United States v. Organek United States v. Williams Harmelin Id 3. The Fourteenth Amendment Claim Braley v. City of Pontiac . a. Procedural Due Process Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex see Kentucky Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson See Morales v. Mich. Parole Bd. Sova v. Holder Patel v. Gonzales b. Substantive Due Process Braley IV. CONCLUSION DISMISSES DENIES CERTIFIES IT IS SO ORDERED
]]>
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.
