Walker V Campbell
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JASON THOMAS WALKER,
Petitioner, Case No. 25-cv-12052
V. Hon. Brandy R. McMillion
United States District Judge
WARDEN CAMPBELL,
Respondent,
___________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY,
DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS
Jason Thomas Walker (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner incarcerated at the Gus
Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See generally ECF No. 1. Included in
the petition is also a motion to stay the proceedings. Id. at PageID.3. For the reasons
below, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is SUMMARILY DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the motion to stay the proceedings is DENIED.
I.
Petitioner pleaded guilty in the Iron County Circuit Court as part of a plea
bargain. ECF No. 1, PageID.2. Petitioner does not specify what he was convicted
of, but the Michigan Department of Corrections’ Offender Tracking Information
System (OTIS) indicates Petitioner was convicted of attempted extortion and being
a fourth felony habitual offender; and he was sentenced to six years, four months to
thirty years in prison.1 Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. People v.
Walker, No. 372682 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2024); lv. den. 19 N.W.3d 338 (Mich.
2025).
Petitioner has now essentially filed a boilerplate petition for writ of habeas
corpus which fails to allege any facts which show that he is being detained in
violation of the federal constitution and fails to assert any legal argument about how
his detention is unconstitutional. See generally ECF No. 1. Petitioner also seeks a
stay of the proceedings so he can return to the state courts to file a post-conviction
motion, but he has failed to specify the issues that he wishes to raise either here or
in the state courts. And he fails to explain why such issues were not raised on his
direct appeal. Petitioner also failed to pay the $ 5.00 filing fee or file an application
to proceed in forma pauperis.
II.
As an initial matter, Petitioner’s habeas petition is deficient because he failed
to pay the $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See
1 See Biographical Information, MICH. DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS, https://mdocweb.state.mi.us
/otis2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=624498 (last accessed July 21, 2025). The Court is
permitted to take judicial notice of public records, including records of convictions. See Ward v.
Wolfenbarger, 323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821, n. 3 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
Gravitt v. Tyszkiewicz, 14 F. App’x 348, 349 (6th Cir. 2001). This is grounds alone
to dismiss the petition; nonetheless, the Court will address additional reasons for
summary dismissal.
First, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must allege facts that establish a
cause of action under federal law, or it may summarily be dismissed. See Perez v.
Hemingway, 157 F. Supp. 2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “[A] claim for relief in
habeas corpus must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee,
as well as a statement of the facts which entitle the petitioner to relief.” Gray v.
Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996) (internal citations omitted). A federal
district court is authorized to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it plainly
appears from the face of the petition or the exhibits that are attached to it that the
petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S.
849, 856 (1994); Crump v. Lafler, 657 F.3d 393, 396, n.2 (6th Cir. 2011); Carson v.
Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1999); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4,
28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. No response to a habeas petition is necessary when the
petition is frivolous, or obviously lacks merit, or where the necessary facts can be
determined from the petition itself without consideration of a response by the state.
Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 140-141 (6th Cir. 1970).
Conclusory allegations in a habeas petition, without evidentiary support, do
not provide a basis for habeas relief. Payne v. Smith, 207 F. Supp. 2d 627, 650 (E.D.
Mich. 2002). A mere “boiler-plate assertion” that a petitioner’s conviction contains
some unspecified flaw does not equate to a valid claim that a federal district court
should research and consider. See Gardner v. Norris, 949 F. Supp. 1359, 1368 (E.D.
Ark. 1996). Dismissal of a habeas petition under Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 “is appropriate when a petition and
accompanying pleadings are unintelligible and a court is unable to determine what
alleged errors of fact or law are at issue for adjudication.” Arega v. Warden,
Chillicothe Corr. Inst., 347 F. Supp. 3d 359, 361 (S.D. Ohio 2018).
Here, the case must be dismissed because Petitioner has filed a petition which
fails to allege any facts that show he is being detained in violation of the federal
constitution or make any legal arguments as to why his detention is illegal. And to
the extent that Petitioner was seeking to file the petition as a “protective” petition to
ensure compliance with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s
(AEDPA) statute of limitations, the case is still subject to dismissal, at this time.
A habeas petitioner who is concerned about the possible effects of his state
post-conviction filings on the AEDPA’s statute of limitations can file a “protective”
petition in federal court and then ask for the petition to be held in abeyance pending
the exhaustion of state post-conviction remedies. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S.
408, 416 (2005) (citing Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)). The federal court
may then stay a federal habeas petition and hold further proceedings in abeyance
pending resolution of state court post-conviction proceedings, provided there is good
cause for failure to exhaust claims and that the unexhausted claims are not “plainly
meritless.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278.
Here, Petitioner again fails to delineate the issues that he wishes to raise on
habeas review or in the state courts. Thus, this Court is unable to determine whether
Petitioner’s claims have any potential merit or whether they are “plainly meritless.”
Moreover, Petitioner does not state why such claims have not been exhausted with
the state courts – therefore, he has failed, at this time, to establish good cause for
failing to exhaust these claims, so as to entitle him to a stay of the proceedings. A
bare-bones motion for a stay of proceedings does not satisfy the requirements under
Rhines for the issuance of a stay. See Cunningham v. Conway, 717 F. Supp. 2d 339,
349 (W.D.N.Y. 2010).
Additionally, a stay of Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus
would be inappropriate, because there are no exceptional or unusual circumstances
present that justify holding the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in abeyance
pending petitioner’s return to the state courts to exhaust his claim, rather than
dismissing it without prejudice. The Michigan Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s
application for leave to appeal on April 28, 2025. However, the one-year statute of
limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) for filing habeas petitions did not begin to
run on that day. Where a state prisoner has sought direct review of his or her
conviction in the state’s highest court but does not file a petition for certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court, the one-year limitation period for seeking habeas review
starts running not on the date that the state court entered judgment against the
prisoner, but on the date that the 90-day time period to seek certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court expires. See Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 119 (2009).
Petitioner did not seek a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court,
thus, his judgment will become final, for the purpose of commencing the running of
the one-year limitations period, on July 27, 2025. See Grayson v. Grayson, 185 F.
Supp. 2d 747, 750 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
Petitioner filed the instant petition with this Court on June 28, 2025, before
the one-year statute of limitations even commenced.2 And 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)
expressly provides that the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations is tolled during
the pendency of any state post-conviction motion filed by Petitioner. Therefore,
Petitioner has an entire year remaining under the limitations period, and the
unexpired portion of that period would be tolled during the pendency of Petitioner’s
state post-conviction proceedings. Consequently, because Petitioner would not be
prejudiced if his habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice during the
2 Under the prison mailbox rule, this Court will assume that Petitioner filed his habeas petition on
June 28, 2025, the date that it was signed and dated. See Towns v. United States, 190 F.3d 468,
469 (6th Cir. 1999).
pendency of his motion for post-conviction relief, the Court finds it appropriate to
issue a summary dismissal. A stay of the proceedings is not necessary or appropriate
to preserve the federal forum for Petitioner’s claims. See Schroeder v. Renico, 156
F. Supp. 2d 838, 845-46 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the instant petition without prejudice and
deny the motion to stay the proceedings.
III.
Having found the petition should be summarily dismissed, the Court declines
to issue a certificate of appealability. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22
provides that an appeal may not proceed unless a certificate of appealability is issued
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A certificate of appealability may be issued “only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). When a district court denies a habeas petition on procedural
grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claims, a
certificate of appealability should generally issue, and an appeal of the district
court’s order may be taken. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). However,
the petitioner must show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that
matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Id. (citation omitted). “The district court must issue or deny a certificate
of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 11(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
For the reasons stated in this opinion, the Court denies Petitioner a certificate
of appealability because his petition is barebones, and the Court is unable to
determine what alleged errors of fact or law are at issue for adjudication. See e.g.
Arega v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., 347 F. Supp. 3d at 360. The Court will
also deny Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis, because the appeal would be
frivolous. See Allen v. Stovall, 156 F. Supp. 2d 791, 798 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
IV.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay the Proceedings is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of
appealability or leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 22, 2025 s/Brandy R. McMillion
HON. BRANDY R. MCMILLION
United States District Judge