-JGS Brooks #251955 v. Curtin, No. 1:2010cv00736 - Document 6 (W.D. Mich. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION ; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, aeb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JGS Brooks &#035;251955 v. Curtin Doc. 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER G. BROOKS, Petitioner, v. Case No. 1:10-cv-736 Honorable Paul L. Maloney CINDI S. CURTIN, Respondent. _______________________________/ OPINION This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. Rule 4, RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has the duty to screen out petitions that lack merit on their face). A dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed because it fails to raise a meritorious federal claim. Dockets.Justia.com Factual Allegations Petitioner Christopher G. Brooks presently is incarcerated at the Oaks Correctional Facility. Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere in the Monroe County Circuit Court to one count of armed robbery, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.529, and one count of possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.227b. He was sentenced on September 26, 1996 to respective terms of three to twenty years and two years, to be served consecutively. Petitioner does not challenge his underlying convictions or his sentences. Instead, he contends that, on October 22, 1996, he was classified as posing a very high assaultive risk and a high property risk. Petitioner contends that the classification, which was permanent, was imposed in violation of his constitutional rights to procedural due process. Although Petitioner acknowledges that he received a hearing after his initial classification, he contends that, under Michigan law, he was entitled to a hearing before the classification was imposed. He also contends that, because state law requires that a hearing be provided before the classification is made, he was deprived of equal protection. According to Petitioner, his high-risk classification prevents him from being released on parole and from being released to a community correction center. Discussion The Fourteenth Amendment protects an individual from deprivation of life, liberty or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one of these interests is at stake. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). According to the Supreme Court, a prisoner can show a liberty interest protected by due process only when a sanction will inevitably affect the duration of his sentence or when a deprivation imposes an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Sandin v. -2- Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486-87 (1995); see also Jones v. Baker, 155 F.3d 810, 812 (6th Cir. 1998); Rimmer-Bey v. Brown, 62 F.3d 789, 790-91 (6th Cir. 1995). Petitioner fails to make either showing. First, to the extent that Petitioner suggests that his security classification will inevitably affect the duration of his sentence because it impairs his ability to obtain release on parole, his claim is without merit. There is no constitutional or inherent right to be conditionally released before the expiration of a prison sentence. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). Although a state may establish a parole system, it has no duty to do so; thus, the presence of a parole system by itself does not give rise to a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole release. Id. at 7, 11; Bd. of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 373 (1987). Rather, a liberty interest is present only if state law entitles an inmate to release on parole. Inmates of Orient Corr. Inst. v. Ohio State Adult Parole Auth., 929 F.2d 233, 235 (6th Cir. 1991). In Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162, 1164-165 (6th Cir. 1994) (en banc), the Sixth Circuit, noting the broad powers of the Michigan authorities to deny parole, held that the Michigan system does not create a liberty interest in parole. Subsequent to its 1994 decision, the Sixth Circuit has recognized the continuing validity of Sweeton and has continued to find that Michigan s parole scheme creates no liberty interest in being released on parole. See Foster v. Booker, 595 F.3d 353, 368 (6th Cir. 2010); Ward v. Stegall, 93 F. App x 805, 806 (6th Cir. 2004); Martin v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 83 F. App x 114, 155 (6th Cir. 2003); Bullock v. McGinnis, 5 F. App x 340, 342 (6th Cir. 2001); Turnboe v. Stegall, No. 00-1182, 2000 WL 1679478, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 1, 2000); Hawkins v. Abramajtys, No. 99-1995, 2000 WL 1434695, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2000); Irvin v. Mich. Parole Bd., No. 99-1817, 2000 WL 800029, at *2 (6th Cir. June 14, 2000); Clifton v. Gach, No. 98-2239, 1999 WL 1253069, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 17, 1999). In addition, the -3- Michigan Supreme Court has recognized that there exists no liberty interest in parole under the Michigan system. Glover v. Mich. Parole Bd., 596 N.W.2d 598, 603-04 (Mich. 1999). Until Petitioner has served his twenty-year maximum sentence, he has no reasonable expectation of liberty. In the absence of a liberty interest, even an allegation of arbitrary or capricious denial of release on parole states no federal claim. See Haynes, 1990 WL 41025, at *1. The discretionary parole system in Michigan holds out no more than a mere hope that the benefit will be obtained. Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 11. Therefore, the Michigan Parole Board s failure or refusal to consider Petitioner for parole, even if it was based on an inaccurate risk classification, implicates no federal right. Second, Petitioner cannot demonstrate that his classification imposes an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. In Sandin, the Court concluded that a classification and security determination did not impose an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (addressing a placement in administrative segregation). Moreover, the Supreme Court repeatedly has held that a prisoner has no constitutional right to be incarcerated in a particular facility or to be held in a specific security classification. See Olim, 461 U.S. at 245; Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 228-29 (1976). The Sixth Circuit has followed the Supreme Court s rulings in a variety of security classification challenges. See, e.g., Harris v. Truesdell, 79 F. App x 756, 759 (6th Cir. 2003) (no right to be held in a specific security classification); Locklear v. Holland, No. 98-6407, 1999 WL 1000835, at *2 (6th Cir. Oct. 28, 1999) (dismissing habeas petition based on alleged improper classification); Mackey v. Dyke, 111 F.3d 460, 463 (6th Cir. 1997); Cash v. Reno, No. 97-5220, 1997 WL 809982, -4- at *1-2 (6th Cir. Dec. 23, 1997) (holding that placement in a security level higher than warranted by the information contained in a prisoner s file does not implicate due process because a prisoner has no constitutional right to be held in a particular prison or security classification). Petitioner s designation as being a very high assaultive risk and a high property risk is nothing more than a security classification used by the prison. Because Petitioner does not have a liberty interest in a particular security level or classification, he cannot demonstrate that the classification was imposed in violation of his right to due process. Petitioner s equal protection claim also is meritless. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that a state may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. CONST., amend XIV; City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). The Equal Protection Clause does not forbid all classifications, but simply prevents governmental decision makers from treating differently persons who are similarly situated in all relevant respects. Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 439; F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920); Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Nichols, 278 F.3d 570, 574 (6th Cir. 2002) (the Clause protects against arbitrary classifications, and requires that similarly situated persons be treated equally. ). Strict scrutiny of an alleged equal protection violation is only employed if the classification at issue discriminates on the basis of a suspect criterion or impinges upon a fundamental right. Hadix v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 840, 843 (6th Cir. 2000). Petitioner s classification as a high assaultive risk does not implicate a fundamental right because there is no constitutional right to release on parole and no liberty interest in a security classification. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484; Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 7; Sweeton, 27 F.3d at 1164-65. In addition, prisoners are not a suspect -5- class. Hadix, 230 F.3d at 843; Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 604 (6th Cir. 1998); Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281, 1286 (6th Cir. 1997); see also Zehner v. Trigg, 133 F.3d 459, 463 (7th Cir. 1997) (dismissing as completely unsupported the idea that prisoners are a suspect class). Because neither a fundamental right nor a suspect class is at issue, the rational basis standard applies. Club Italia Soccer & Sports Org., Inc. v. Charter Twp. of Shelby, 470 F.3d 286, 298 (6th Cir. 2006). Under rational basis scrutiny, government action amounts to a constitutional violation only if it is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that the court can only conclude that the government s actions were irrational. Id. (quoting Warren v. City of Athens, 411 F.3d 697, 710 (6th Cir. 2005)). To prove his equal protection claim, Petitioner must demonstrate intentional and arbitrary discrimination by the state; that is, he must demonstrate that he has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). Petitioner fails even to allege that he was intentionally treated differently than other prisoners with similar or worse histories of assaultive or violent behavior. Instead, he simply states that, because state law requires a pre-classification hearing, he was denied equal protection. Petitioner s allegations are wholly inadequate to support an equal protection claim. Moreover, Petitioner s allegation that his classification and resulting parole denial violated state law is not cognizable on habeas review. The court may entertain an application for habeas relief on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas petition must state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 -6- U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977) (quoting Advisory Committee Notes on Rule 4, RULES GOVERNING HABEAS CORPUS CASES). The federal courts have no power to intervene on the basis of a perceived error of state law. Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005); Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984). Conclusion In light of the foregoing, the Court will summarily dismiss Petitioner s application pursuant to Rule 4 because it fails to raise a meritorious federal claim. Certificate of Appealability Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court must determine whether a certificate of appealability should be granted. A certificate should issue if Petitioner has demonstrated a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This Court s dismissal of Petitioner s action under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases is a determination that the habeas action, on its face, lacks sufficient merit to warrant service. It would be highly unlikely for this Court to grant a certificate, thus indicating to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that an issue merits review, when the Court has already determined that the action is so lacking in merit that service is not warranted. See Love v. Butler, 952 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1991) (it is somewhat anomalous for the court to summarily dismiss under Rule 4 and grant a certificate); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990) (requiring reversal where court summarily dismissed under Rule 4 but granted certificate); Dory v. Comm r of Corr. of the State of New York, 865 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir. 1989) (it was intrinsically contradictory to grant a certificate when habeas action does not warrant service under Rule 4); Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n.1 (2d Cir. 1983) (issuing certificate would be inconsistent with a summary dismissal). -7- The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district court must engage in a reasoned assessment of each claim to determine whether a certificate is warranted. Id. at 467. Each issue must be considered under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Consequently, this Court has examined each of Petitioner s claims under the Slack standard. Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, to warrant a grant of the certificate, [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Id. A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that . . . jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). In applying this standard, the Court may not conduct a full merits review, but must limit its examination to a threshold inquiry into the underlying merit of Petitioner s claims. Id. The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not conclude that this Court s dismissal of Petitioner s claims was debatable or wrong. Therefore, the Court will deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability. A Judgment and Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered. Dated: August 9, 2010 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney Chief United States District Judge -8-
]]>
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.
