RUFF v. DAVIS

Full title: DEBBIE ANN RUFF, Petitioner, v. SUSAN DAVIS, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jul 31, 2006

Case No. 06-CV-12436 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 31, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 06-CV-12436.

July 31, 2006

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

JOHN O'MEARA, District Judge

Petitioner Debbie Ann Ruff is a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Huron Valley Complex in Ypsilanti, Michigan. She has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that she is incarcerated in violation of her constitutional rights. For the reasons which follow, the petition will be dismissed.

Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, provides that the Court shall promptly examine a petition to determine "if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." If the Court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court shall summarily dismiss the petition.McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) ("Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face").

In her petition, Petitioner presents a single claim for habeas corpus relief, that the sentencing court abused its discretion when it sentenced her beyond the sentencing guidelines range without articulating substantial and compelling reasons.

It is well-established that "`federal habeas corpus review does not lie for errors of state law.'" Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991), quoting Louis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990). Whether a sentencing court had substantial and compelling reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines is a matter of state law. Welch v. Burke, 49 F. Supp. 2d 992, 1009 (E.D. Mich. 1999). See also Howard v. White, 76 Fed. Appx. 52, 53 (6^th Cir. 2003) (holding that a state court's application of sentencing guidelines is a matter of state concern only). Thus, the petition presents only a state law claim which may not form the basis for habeas corpus relief.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that it plainly appears from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief and DISMISSES the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

SO ORDERED.