United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. Majzoub Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO
J. MICHELSON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Winowiecki filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (R.
1.) Winowiecki challenges his state-court convictions for
multiple counts of criminal sexual conduct. Winowiecki raises
four claims for relief, some of which, he admits, are not
response, the Warden filed a motion to dismiss. Yet dismissal
of Winowiecki's current petition would jeopardize the
timeliness of a future petition. So the Court will deny the
Warden's motion, grant Winowiecki's request for a
stay, establish conditions under which Winowiecki must
proceed, and administratively close the matter.
convicted Winowiecki on two counts of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(b), one
count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp.
Laws § 750.520c(1)(b), and one count of attempted
first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.92. (R. 1, PID 1-2.) He received a lengthy prison
sentence. (R. 1, PID 1.)
filed a direct appeal. He raised three issues: a Fifth and
Sixth Amendment challenge to the prosecutor's opening and
closing statements, a due process challenge to his sentence,
and an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. (R. 1, PID
4-5.) The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected all three.
See People v. Winowiecki, No. 317821, 2015 WL 340266
(Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2015).
then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan
Supreme Court. He whittled his claims down to two: the
challenge to the prosecutor's opening and closing
alongside a new, speedy trial claim. (R. 4, PID 33.) The
Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. People v.
Winowiecki, 498 Mich. 973 (Mich. Sept. 9, 2015).
then filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Winowiecki's petition returns to the initial three claims
raised with the Michigan Court of Appeals, drops the speedy
trial claim, and adds another
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. (R. 1, PID 17-18.)
to the petition, the Warden says Winowiecki failed to exhaust
three of the four claims raised in the petition. (R. 1, PID
35.) Winowiecki concedes the point, and not wanting to
abandon his unexhausted claims, asks the Court to stay
further proceedings while he returns to state court to
exhaust. (R. 5, PID 41-42.)
prisoner must exhaust available remedies in state court
before raising a claim in a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b), 2254(c).
To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, all claims must be
“fairly presented” to the state courts, meaning
that the petitioner must have put before the state courts
both the factual and legal bases for the claims. See
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29-32 (2004). Presenting
the factual and legal bases requires Winowiecki to undergo
“one full round” of the state's appellate
review process. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S.
838, 845 (1999). In practice, “one full round”
means presenting each issue to both the Michigan Court of
Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. See Morse v.
Trippett, 37 F. App'x 96, 103 (6th Cir. 2002).
mentioned, Winowiecki concedes that he failed to exhaust
three of the four claims in his petition. When presented with
a habeas corpus petition containing exhausted and unexhausted
claims, this Court has numerous options. See Harris v.
Lafler, 553 F.3d 1028, 1031 (6th Cir. 2009). One is to
“stay the petition and hold it in abeyance while the
petitioner returns to state court to raise his unexhausted
claims . . . .” Id. (citing Rhines v.
Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005)). This option applies
where outright dismissal of the petition jeopardizes the
timeliness of a future petition, there exists good cause for
the petitioner's failure to exhaust state court remedies,