Artis #187534 v. Boynton, No. 2:2008cv00166 - Document 5 (W.D. Mich. 2008)
Court Description: OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION LARRY EUGENE ARTIS #187534, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2:08-cv-166 HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL JOHN BOYNTON, Respondent. ________________________________/ OPINION Petitioner Larry Eugene Artis #187534 filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of his state court conviction. Petitioner was convicted pursuant to a nolo contendere plea of armed robbery on April 19, 1992, and was sentenced to 4 to 15 years in prison. Petitioner filed an appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals on April 23, 1992, which was denied on February 4, 1994. People of Michigan v. Larry Eugene Artis, Michigan Court of Appeals No. 151612. Petitioner then filed an appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied on September 30, 1994. People of Michigan v. Larry Eugene Artis, Michigan Supreme Court No. 99183. 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, R ULES G OVERNING § 2254 C ASES ; 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.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 906 (1970) (district court has the duty to screen out petitions that lack merit on their face). Petitioner s application is barred by the one-year period of limitation provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), which was enacted on April 24, 1996, as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act , P UB. L. N O . 104-132, 110 S TAT. 1214 (AEDPA). Section 2244(d)(1) 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 ofS (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. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The running of the period of limitation is tolled when a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). In this case, § 2244(d)(1)(A) provides the period of limitation. The other subsections do not apply to the grounds that Petitioner has raised. Under § 2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year limitation period runs from the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct -2- review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. As noted above, Petitioner s appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court was denied on September 30, 1994. Petitioner did not petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The one-year limitations period, however, did not begin to run until the ninety-day period in which Petitioner could have sought review in the United States Supreme Court had expired. See Bronaugh v. Ohio, 235 F.3d 280, 283 (6th Cir. 2000). The ninety-day period expired on December 30, 1994. By the letter of the statute, Petitioner had one year from December 30, 1994, to file his habeas application. However, a literal application of § 2244(d)(1), which was enacted on April 24, 1996, would extinguish claims that could have been brought prior to the enactment of the provision. As one court has stated: [O]n the eve of the Act s enactment, Petitioner could have been confident that he possessed the right to petition this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, only to rise the next morning to learn that his right had not only disappeared, but had expired three years earlier. Martin v. Jones, 969 F. Supp. 1058, 1060 (M.D. Tenn. 1997). If Petitioner had filed his application on April 23, 1996, his claim would have been viable because the period of limitation had not yet been enacted. See Lindh v. Murphy, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 2063, 2068 (1997) (amendments to chapter 153, including period of limitation under § 2244(d)(1), generally apply only to habeas cases filed after enactment of the AEDPA). Because § 2244(d)(1) could extinguish claims, many courts have allowed a grace period of one year. The Sixth Circuit joined the Third and Fifth Circuits, and held that the grace period is one year from the effective date of the AEDPA, April 24, 1996. Brown v. O Dea, 187 F.3d 572, 577 (6th Cir. 1999). Thus, Petitioner is accorded a one-year grace period. Petitioner filed his action on July 14, 2008, more than eleven years after the passage of the grace period. Thus, any -3- potentially applicable grace period would not provide Petitioner with a method to avoid the applicability of the period of limitation provided in § 2244(d)(1). In summary, the Court concludes that Petitioner s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition with prejudice. In addition, if petitioner should choose to appeal this action, a certificate of appealability will be denied as to each issue raised by the petitioner in this application for habeas corpus relief. 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). A 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, if 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. Commissioner of Correction 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). 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. Aug. 27, 2001). Rather, the -4- district court must engage in a reasoned assessment of each claim to determine whether a certificate is warranted. Id. Each issue must be considered under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2001). Consequently, the Court has examined each of petitioner s claims under the Slack standard. Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, when a habeas petition is denied on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability may issue only when the prisoner shows, at least, [1] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and [2] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Both showings must be made to warrant the grant of a certificate. Id. The undersigned concludes that reasonable jurists could not debate that each of Petitioner s claims are properly dismissed on the procedural grounds that it is barred by the statute of limitations. Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Id. Therefore, the Court will deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Dated: October 22, 2008 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5-
]]>
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.
