United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MICHAEL D. RICE, Petitioner,
RICHARD JENNINGS, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on petitioner Michael D.
Rice's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons discussed below,
petitioner will be ordered to amend his petition on a
a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of forcible rape,
forcible sodomy, kidnapping, and second-degree assault.
State of Missouri v. Rice, No. 1122-CR05246-01
(22nd Jud. Cir., St. Louis City). On September 27,
2013, he was sentenced to two consecutive life terms, plus
twenty-two years. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on
October 1, 2013. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the
judgment on December 6, 2014. State of Missouri v.
Rice, No. ED100578 (Mo. App. 2014). Petitioner did not
file a motion to transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court.
filed a motion to set aside pursuant to Missouri Supreme
Court Rule 29.15 on February 26, 2015. State of Missouri
v. Rice, No. 1522-CC00653 (22nd Jud. Cir.,
St. Louis City). The motion was denied on May 1, 2017.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on June 2, 2017. The
Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of
petitioner's Rule 29.15 motion on March 27, 2018.
State of Missouri v. Rice, No. ED105634 (Mo. App.
2018). The Court of Appeals issued its mandate on April 18,
filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on March
8, 2019, by placing it in the prison mailing
system. (Docket No. 1 at 14).
has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is deficient in two
respects. First, petitioner has neglected to set forth any
grounds for relief. Second, petitioner's petition appears
to be time-barred.
Grounds for Relief
2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts requires petitioner to “specify
all grounds for relief available to the petitioner” and
to “state the facts supporting each ground.”
Petitioner is also required to demonstrate that he has
exhausted his state remedies. See White v. Wyrick,
651 F.2d 597, 598 (8th Cir. 1981) (“It is
elementary that a § 2254 petitioner must exhaust
available state remedies before he is entitled to relief in
filed his § 2254 petition on a Court form. This form
provides a section for petitioner to assert his grounds for
relief. This form also directs petitioner to provide facts
supporting his grounds for relief, and to demonstrate that he
has exhausted his state remedies. Petitioner has left this
section almost entirely blank. For “ground one, ”
petitioner writes only “N/A, ” which is a common
abbreviation for “not applicable.” (Docket No. 1
at 5). He does not provide any other grounds, he does not
provide any supporting facts, and he does not make any
attempt to show that he has exhausted his state remedies.
assertion of “N/A” does not supply a ground for
relief, as it does not show that he is being held “in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. §
2254(a). Moreover, since he has not provided any grounds for
relief, it is not possible to determine whether he has
exhausted those grounds in state court. Therefore, petitioner
has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts.
the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA), Congress established a one-year statute of
limitations period for petitioners seeking federal habeas
relief from state court judgments. Finch v. Miller,
491 F.3d 424, 426 (8th Cir. 2007). This one-year
statute of limitations begins to run on the latest of four
alternative dates. Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803, 804
(8th Cir. 2001). Relevant here is the provision
stating that a habeas petitioner has one ...