Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-CV-75307-DT
January 10, 2001
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
I.
Petitioner Simone Jordan-El, a state prisoner presently confined at the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted of the major misconduct of being out of place following a prison disciplinary hearing in September, 1999. He appealed this decision to the Michigan Department of Corrections Hearing Division, but his appeal was denied. Petitioner did not appeal to the state circuit court. See Habeas Petition, p. 4. In his pleadings, Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to habeas relief because the misconduct of which he was convicted should have been classified as a minor, rather than a major, misconduct under state law. For the reasons stated below, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.
II.
Petitioner's habeas claim is barred by the doctrine of procedural default because Petitioner failed to appeal the challenged misconduct decision to the state courts as provided by Michigan law. A state prisoner's habeas corpus claims are procedurally defaulted if the prisoner has failed to comply with an independent and adequate state procedural rule, thus causing default of the prisoner's federal claims in state court. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). This can occur when an individual fails to present an issue to a state appellate court upon the only opportunity to do so. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 297-98 (1989); Rust v. Zant, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994). In Coleman, the Supreme Court held that if the decision of the last state court to which a habeas petitioner presented his federal claims fairly appeared to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with federal law, and did not clearly and expressly rely on an independent and adequate state ground, a federal court may address the petition. Id. at 735. The Court went on to note:
This rule does not apply if the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and the court to which the petitioner would be required to present his claims in order to meet the exhaustion requirement would now find the claims procedurally barred. In such a case there is a procedural default for purposes of federal habeas regardless of the decision of the last state court to which the petitioner actually presented his claims. [citation omitted]Id. at 735 n. 1.
Petitioner admits that he did not seek state court review of his disciplinary proceedings in his petition. Further, Petitioner is now time-barred from filing such an appeal with the state courts under Mich. Comp. Laws § 791.255 (establishing a 60-day period for filing such an appeal). Thus, Petitioner has procedurally defaulted his habeas claim.
When a petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim in the state courts, the claim may be raised on habeas review only if the petitioner can demonstrate "cause" and "actual prejudice," see Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 485 (1986), or show that a fundamental miscarriage of justice has occurred. Id. at 496.
To establish cause, a petitioner must establish that some external impediment frustrated his ability to comply with the state's procedural rule. See Murray, 477 U.S. at 488. A petitioner must present a substantial reason to excuse the default. See Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214, 223 (1988); Rust, 17 F.3d at 161. Petitioner neither alleges nor establishes sufficient cause to excuse his failure to appeal to the state courts. He merely asserts that he did not realize that he had appealable issues until the time period for appeal had expired. This is insufficient to establish cause to excuse his default. See, e.g., Coleman, 501 U.S. at 753; Murray, 477 U.S. at 486-87 (attorney inadvertence or ignorance of the law does not establish cause for a procedural default). This Court need not address the issue of prejudice when a petitioner fails to establish cause to excuse a procedural default. See Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 533 (1986); Long v. McKeen, 722 F.2d 286, 289 (6th Cir. 1983). Petitioner has not established that a fundamental miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case. Petitioner's claim is thus barred by procedural default.
Moreover, even if Petitioner had not procedurally defaulted his claim, he would still not be entitled to relief from this Court. It is well-settled that federal habeas relief may only be granted to an individual who is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). This Court's power to grant a writ of habeas corpus only extends to errors in the application of federal law. See, e.g., Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Federal habeas relief may not be granted based upon a perceived error of state law. Petitioner's sole claim is that the Michigan Department of Corrections erred in classifying his disciplinary violation as a major misconduct. Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on this state law claim.
III.
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that this habeas petition is barred by procedural default and that Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which federal habeas relief may be granted.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
JUDGMENT
The above-entitled matter having come before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Honorable Avern Cohn, United States District Judge, presiding, and in accordance with the Opinion and Order entered on ___January 10,___, 2001;
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the request for habeas relief is DENIED and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.