Filed Date: April 14, 2021
Closed Date: March 25, 2022
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case deals with an individual's right to appeal their state court conviction in federal court when the individual is tracked via ankle monitor (as opposed to held in prison). On April 27, 2017, petitioner was convicted of second degree criminal sexual conduct. On April 14, 2021, petitioner filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The respondent in this case was the Michigan Department of Corrections. Petitioner challenged this conviction, alleging that he was deprived of due process and a fair trial, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the state courts unreasonably did not hold an evidentiary hearing on his claims about trial counsel.
On October 20, 2021, respondent filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that petitioner was not in custody and thus was not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief. as he was not incarcerated/on parole at the time he filed his petition. Petitioner argued that he was in custody at the time of his petition, for he was sentenced to lifetime electronic monitoring (LEM), and he argued that this monitoring device and the fact that he was subject to lifetime sex-offender registration was comparable to being in custody.
On March 25, 2022, the court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss. The court agreed with the respondent that petitioner was not in custody and thus, the court lacked jurisdiction. The court, did, however, grant a certificate of appealability on petitioner's claims.
On April 11, 2022, petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On June 23, 2023, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower's court decision. In deciding this issue, the court looked to whether the LEM and sex-offender registration were severe restraints on his liberty. The court held that the LEM and sex-offender registration requirements were "collateral consequences" of conviction, and not severe restraints.
The case is closed.
Summary Authors
Renuka Wagh (4/22/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59820646/parties/corridore-v-washington/
Borman, Paul D. (Michigan)
Aukerman, Miriam J. (Michigan)
Christensen-Brown, Andrea M. (Michigan)
Jenkins, Eric (Michigan)
Korobkin, Daniel S. (Michigan)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59820646/corridore-v-washington/
Last updated Aug. 5, 2025, 5:58 a.m.
State / Territory: Michigan
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 14, 2021
Closing Date: March 25, 2022
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is an individual convicted of 2nd degree criminal sexual conduct who has completed his imprisonment but is still subject to lifetime electronic monitoring and sex offender registration.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Michigan Department of Corrections, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: