Barnes 568401 v. Rewerts

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: March 28, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00328
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ______

DEANDRE JAMAAL BARNES,

Petitioner, Case No. 1:25-cv-328

v. Honorable Ray Kent

RANDEE REWERTS,

Respondent. ____________________________/ ORDER OF TRANSFER TO SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

This is a habeas corpus action filed by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Deandre Jamaal Barnes is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Carson City Correctional Center (DRF) in Carson City, Montcalm County, Michigan. Petitioner is currently serving a sentence of 25 to 58 years imposed after a jury in the Muskegon County Circuit Court convicted him of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b. This is not Petitioner’s first habeas corpus action challenging his conviction and sentence. On September 7, 2021, Petitioner filed his first § 2254 petition in this Court. See Pet., Barnes v. Rewerts, No. 1:21-cv-776 (W.D. Mich.) (ECF No. 1). In an opinion, order, and judgment entered on February 27, 2023, the Court denied that petition after concluding that Petitioner had failed to set forth a meritorious federal ground for habeas relief. See Op., Order & J., id. (ECF Nos. 16, 17, 18). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability in an order and judgment entered on July 31, 2023. See 6th Cir. Order & J., id. (ECF Nos. 23, 24). Petitioner’s current petition is subject to the “second or successive” provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (AEDPA). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); see also Cress v. Palmer, 484 F.3d 844, 852 (6th Cir. 2007). A successive petition raises grounds identical to those raised and rejected in a prior petition. Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 444 n.6 (1986) (plurality) (citing Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15–

17 (1963)); Lonberger v. Marshall, 808 F.2d 1169, 1173 (6th Cir. 1987). A second petition is one which alleges new and different grounds for relief after a first petition was denied. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 470 (1991); see also Burger v. Zant, 984 F.2d 1129, 1132–33 (11th Cir. 1993) (distinguishing second petitions and successive petitions). A prior dismissal with prejudice has a preclusive effect under § 2244, though a prior dismissal without prejudice does not. See Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 643–46 (1998). Both dismissals on the merits and certain types of decisions reached before a merits determination are dismissals with prejudice that have a preclusive effect. Carlson v. Pitcher, 137 F.3d 416, 419 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing Benton v. Washington, 106 F.3d 162, 164 (7th Cir. 1996)).

For example, a dismissal with prejudice based on procedural default is “on the merits” and, thus, a subsequent habeas application would be second or successive. In re Cook, 215 F.3d 606, 608 (6th Cir. 2000). Similarly, a dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations is a decision on the merits, rendering a subsequent application second or successive. See Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 2005) (“We hold that dismissal of a § 2254 petition for failure to comply with the one-year statute of limitations constitutes an adjudication on the merits that renders future petitions under § 2254 challenging the same conviction ‘second or successive’ petitions under § 2244(b).”). Petitioner’s prior habeas action was dismissed on the merits; thus, the instant petition is second or successive. Before a second or successive application may be filed in the district court, the applicant must move in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see also Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 661 n.3 (2001) (circuit court may authorize the petition upon a prima facie showing that the claim satisfies § 2244(b)(2); to survive dismissal in the district court, the application must actually show the

statutory standard). Petitioner did not seek the approval of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals before filing this petition. The appropriate disposition is a transfer of the case to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this application for habeas relief is transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Dated: March 28, 2025 /s/ Ray Kent Ray Kent United States Magistrate Judge