Holbrook v. Rivard
2:17-cv-12548
E.D. Mich.Aug 16, 2017Background
- Petitioner Charles Holbrook is serving state prison time following a Kent County jury conviction on multiple counts involving production, possession, and facilitation of child sexually abusive material and related offenses, plus felon-in-possession.
- Holbrook filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting a due‑process claim (citing United States v. Layne) that passive conduct prosecution violates due process.
- The court noted Holbrook has filed multiple prior federal habeas petitions challenging the same convictions, including a prior petition denied on the merits.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a petitioner must obtain authorization from the court of appeals before filing a second or successive habeas petition in district court.
- The district court concluded the current petition is successive and that it lacks jurisdiction to consider it absent Sixth Circuit authorization.
- The court ordered the case transferred to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and In re Sims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may consider the habeas petition despite prior petitions | Holbrook contends his due‑process claim warrants review now | Respondent (and statute) argues prior denial makes this a successive petition requiring appellate authorization | Petition is successive; district court lacks jurisdiction without Sixth Circuit authorization |
| Proper procedure when a successive petition is filed in district court | Holbrook seeks district adjudication of his claim | Court must either dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or transfer to the court of appeals for authorization | Court transfers the case to the Sixth Circuit under § 1631 and In re Sims |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Layne, 43 F.3d 127 (5th Cir. 1995) (cited by petitioner for due‑process principle regarding prosecution for passive conduct)
- Stewart v. Martinez‑Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (U.S. 1998) (requires court of appeals authorization before successive habeas petitions proceed in district court)
- Ferrazza v. Tessmer, 36 F. Supp. 2d 965 (E.D. Mich. 1999) (district court lacks jurisdiction over successive habeas petitions absent appellate authorization)
- In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45 (6th Cir. 1997) (direction that district courts in Sixth Circuit must transfer successive petitions to the court of appeals)