Vontz v. People of the State of Michigan ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION NICHOLAS J. VONTZ, Petitioner, Case No. 24-cv-12698 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Respondent. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL Nicholas J. Vontz is in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections pursuant to convictions for four counts of aggravated stalking, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411, and four counts of using a computer to commit a crime, Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.797(3)(d). On October 3, 2024, he filed a pro se pleading titled “Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial on the Basis of Newly Presented Evidence (Successive 6.500 Motion).” (ECF No. 1.) The Clerk of the Court filed the pleading as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice, deny a certificate of appealability and deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. I In October 2024, Vontz filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court. See Vontz v. Corrigan, No. 24-10384. That petition, assigned to the Honorable Stephen J. Murphy, challenges Vontz’s convictions for aggravated stalking and using a computer to commit a crime. (See Pet., ECF No.1.) In September 2024, Vontz filed a motion to stay the habeas case to allow him to file a motion for relief from judgment in state court concerning new evidence – an affidavit executed by Sarah Ruby. (See Mot., ECF No. 14.) The petition and motion remain pending. As noted above, on October 3, 2024, Vontz filed a pro se pleading titled “Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial on the Basis of Newly Presented Evidence (Successive 6.500 Motion),” which was docketed as a habeas corpus petition. The motion concerns the same convictions challenged in the previously filed petition and seeks a new trial based on new evidence – Sarah Ruby’s affidavit. II Vontz’s motion is not a habeas corpus petition and, even if it were properly construed as such, the motion must be dismissed because it is duplicative of a previously filed petition. The motion does not cite the habeas statute or any federal laws or cases and the title references Michigan Court Rule 6.500 which governs post-convictions motions under Michigan law. The pleading is captioned with the state court criminal case information. The motion therefore is not an attempt to initiate a habeas corpus proceeding or any new case in this Court and, even if it were, a motion is insufficient to commence a habeas case. See Sanford v. Lindamood, No. 16-6712, 2017 WL 11622222, at *2 (6th Cir. July 13, 2017) (holding that a motion unaccompanied by a habeas corpus petition is insufficient to initiate a federal habeas corpus proceeding for statute of limitations purposes.”); Brown v. Michigan, No. 2:18-CV-13675, 2019 WL 2866190, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 3, 2019) (Berg, J.) (same). To the extent the pleading is properly construed as a habeas petition, it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of Vontz’s previously filed habeas petition. A petitioner may not challenge the same conviction and sentence in two cases. See, e.g., Gamet v. Howard, No. 23-CV-11102, 2023 WL 5001449, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 4, 2023). The case will be dismissed without prejudice because it is duplicative of the earlier-filed case. Jessie v. Michigan Att’y Gen., No. 23-11471, 2024 WL 2839278, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 13, 2024). III Before a petitioner may appeal the dismissal or denial of a habeas corpus petition, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). When a district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, in order to be entitled to a certificate of appealability, a petitioner must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the Court’s procedural ruling. The Court therefore denies Vontz a certificate of appealability. IV For the reasons explained above, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court further DENIES leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal as an appeal from this non-prejudicial dismissal cannot be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: October 30, 2024 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on October 30, 2024, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126