Cooper v. Leirstein

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
JOSEPH COOPER,
Petitioner,
v.
MATT LEIRSTEIN,
Respondent.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1438
Honorable Maarten Vermaat
OPINION
Petitioner Joseph Cooper is a detainee at the Emmet County Correctional Facility in
Petoskey, Michigan. Petitioner filed the present petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that his detention violates his constitutional rights. (Petition, ECF No. 1.)1
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Petitioner consented to proceed in all matters in this action under the jurisdiction of a United States
magistrate judge. (ECF No. 3.) Section 636(c) provides that “[u]pon the consent of the parties, a
full-time United States magistrate judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury
civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). This case is
presently before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Rule 4 of the
1 Petitioner has filed two similar petitions for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
in this Court regarding the same Emmet County Circuit Court criminal charges. See Cooper v.
Leirstein, No. 1:25-cv-940 (W.D. Mich.); Cooper v. Leirstein, No. 1:25-cv-970 (W.D. Mich.).
Case 1:25-cv-01438-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.2 The Court is required to conduct this initial review prior to the
service of the petition. Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
Service of the petition on the respondent is of particular significance in defining a putative
respondent’s relationship to the proceedings. “An individual or entity named as a defendant is not
obliged to engage in litigation unless notified of the action, and brought under a court’s authority,
by formal process.” Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347 (1999).
“Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any
procedural imposition on a named defendant.” Id. at 350. “[O]ne becomes a party officially, and
is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of a summons or other authority-
asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear and defend.” Id.
(citations omitted). That is, “[u]nless a named defendant agrees to waive service, the summons
continues to function as the sine qua non directing an individual or entity to participate in a civil
action or forgo procedural or substantive rights.” Id. at 351.
Rule 4, by requiring courts to review and even resolve the petition before service, creates
a circumstance where there may only be one party to the proceeding—the petitioner. Because
Respondent has not yet been served, the undersigned concludes that Respondent is not presently a
party whose consent is required to permit the undersigned to conduct a preliminary review of the
petition. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (“The record does not contain a
consent from the defendants[; h]owever, because they had not been served, they were not parties
2 The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions filed under § 2241. See Rule 1(b),
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
Case 1:25-cv-01438-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 5

3
to th[e] action at the time the magistrate entered judgment.”).3 Petitioner’s consent is sufficient to
permit the undersigned to conduct the Rule 4 review.
Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a
preliminary review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. After undertaking the review
required by Rule 4, it plainly appears from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to
relief because he has failed to exhaust his state court remedies.
Accordingly, the Court will summarily dismiss the petition without prejudice.
Discussion
I. Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
The filing fee for a habeas corpus action is $5.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Petitioner is
currently detained at the Emmet County Correctional Facility pending state criminal charges in the
Emmet County Circuit Court. It reasonably appears that paying the cost of this filing fee would
impose an undue financial hardship. Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988).
Therefore, the Court will grant Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
3 But see Coleman v. Lab. & Indus. Rev. Comm’n of Wis., 860 F.3d 461, 471 (7th Cir. 2017)
(concluding that, when determining which parties are required to consent to proceed before a
United States magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), “context matters” and the context the
United States Supreme Court considered in Murphy Bros. was nothing like the context of a
screening dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c));
Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503–04 (9th Cir. 2017) (relying on Black’s Law Dictionary for
the definition of “parties” and not addressing Murphy Bros.); Burton v. Schamp, 25 F.4th 198, 207
n.26 (3d Cir. 2022) (premising its discussion of “the term ‘parties’ solely in relation to its meaning
in Section 636(c)(1), and . . . not tak[ing] an opinion on the meaning of ‘parties’ in other contexts”).
Case 1:25-cv-01438-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 5

4
II. Duplicative Submissions
This is Petitioner’s third petition raising the same issues. The Court has twice informed
Petitioner of the steps he must take to exhaust his state court remedies before presenting a habeas
petition under § 2241 to this Court. Although Petitioner suggests he has done many things in his
attempt to exhaust his claims in the state court, the documents he attaches to his petitions and
supplement (ECF Nos. 1, 5), and the publicly available dockets of the trial court and the Michigan
appellate courts indicate that he is not following the procedures necessary to exhaust his state court
remedies. For all the reasons stated in this Court’s opinions and judgments in Cooper v. Leirstein,
No. 1:25-cv-940 (W.D. Mich.) and Cooper v. Leirstein, No. 1:25-cv-970 (W.D. Mich.), Petitioner
has failed to exhaust his state court remedies. Until he does, this Court is compelled to dismiss his
duplicative habeas petitions.
III. Certificate of Appealability
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court must determine whether a certificate of
appealability should be granted. A certificate should issue if Petitioner has demonstrated a
“substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Sixth
Circuit has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v.
Ohio, 263 F.3d 466, 467 (6th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Rather, the district court must “engage in a
reasoned assessment of each claim” to determine whether a certificate is warranted. Id.
The Court concludes that Petitioner’s application is properly dismissed for lack of
exhaustion. Under Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), when a habeas petition is denied
on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability may issue only “when the prisoner shows, at
least, [1] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of
the denial of a constitutional right and [2] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
Case 1:25-cv-01438-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 5

5
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Both showings must be made to warrant the
grant of a certificate. Id.
The Court concludes that reasonable jurists could not find it debatable whether Petitioner’s
application should be dismissed for lack of exhaustion. Therefore, a certificate of appealability
will be denied. Moreover, for that same reason, the Court also concludes that any issue Petitioner
might raise on appeal would be frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
Conclusion
The Court will enter an order and judgment granting Petitioner leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of exhaustion, and denying a certificate
of appealability.
Dated: January 12, 2026 /s/Maarten Vermaat
Maarten Vermaat
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01438-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 5