From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holbrook v. Bauman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Jan 6, 2016
Case No. 2:15-cv-131 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. 2:15-cv-131

01-06-2016

CHARLES JUDSON HOLBROOK, Petitioner, v. CATHERINE BAUMAN, Respondent.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has before it Petitioner's Objection to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed because it is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. ECF No. 13. Petitioner does not argue that he filed his petition timely, that he is entitled to equitable tolling, or allege any facts or circumstances that would show actual innocence. Petitioner merely states that he is entitled to the miscarriage-of-justice exception because he is actually innocent. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1931-32 (2013); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).

Petitioner does ask the Court to consider his current petition timely based on a previously filed habeas petition that was dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, 1:13-cv-663. The previously dismissed petition does not entitle Petitioner to tolling, nor does his other habeas petitions dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the failing fee or for lack of prosecution. See 1:14-cv-890; 2:15-cv-56. --------

However, as Judge Greeley notes in his R&R, Petitioner has not established that he is actually innocent, or provided new evidence of his innocence. Instead, Petitioner filed various letters, objections, affidavits, and supplements that in no way suggest that he is actually innocent.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Greeley's R&R is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. ECF No. 13. The petition is DISMISSED as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. ECF No. 1. Petitioner's motion to produce, ECF No. 33, and motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 37, are denied as moot. IT IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied. A judgment consistent with this Order will be entered.

SO ORDERED. Dated: 1/6/2016

/s/ R . Allan Edgar

R. Allan Edgar

United States District Court Judge


Summaries of

Holbrook v. Bauman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Jan 6, 2016
Case No. 2:15-cv-131 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2016)
Case details for

Holbrook v. Bauman

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES JUDSON HOLBROOK, Petitioner, v. CATHERINE BAUMAN, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Jan 6, 2016

Citations

Case No. 2:15-cv-131 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2016)

Citing Cases

Holbrook v. Carl

Petitioner's current submission is not prompted by new evidence or new law; he simply claims that he is…

Holbrook v. Carl

Petitioner's current submission is not prompted by new evidence or new law; he simply claims that he is…