United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE THE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Sanders, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Baraga
Maximum Correctional Facility in Baraga, Michigan, filed a
pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction and
sentence for carjacking, M.C.L.A. 750.529a, and felon in
possession of a firearm, M.C.L.A. 750.224f.
filed a motion hold the petition in abeyance to permit him to
file a post-conviction motion to present additional claims
that have not been exhausted with the state courts. The Court
holds the petition in abeyance and stays the proceedings
under the terms outlined in this opinion. The Court
administratively closes the case.
was convicted following a jury trial in the Macomb County
Circuit Court. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on
appeal. People v. Sanders, No. 332895, 2017 WL
5615704 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2017), lv. den. 501
Mich. 1063, 910 N.W.2d 271 (2018).
April 2, 2019, petitioner filed his application for writ of
habeas corpus.Petitioner seeks habeas relief on the
grounds that he raised in the state courts on his direct
seeks to have the petition held in abeyance so that he can
file a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment to
exhaust new claims with the state courts which are not
included in the current petition.
federal district court is authorized to stay fully exhausted
federal habeas petitions pending the exhaustion of other
claims in the state courts. See Bowling v.
Haeberline, 246 Fed.Appx. 303, 306 (6th Cir. 2007)(a
habeas court is entitled to delay a decision in a habeas
petition that contains only exhausted claims “when
considerations of comity and judicial economy would be
served”); See also Thomas v. Stoddard, 89
F.Supp.3d 937, 943 (E.D. Mich. 2015). The Court grants
petitioner's motion to hold the petition in abeyance
during the pendency of any post-conviction motion in the
district court determines that a stay is appropriate pending
exhaustion, the district court “should place reasonable
time limits on a petitioner's trip to state court and
back.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278
(2005). To ensure that there are no delays by petitioner in
exhausting state court remedies, this Court imposes time
limits within which petitioner must proceed with his various
state court proceedings. See Palmer v. Carlton, 276
F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir. 2002).
the Court hereby GRANTS petitioner's motion to stay and
hold his habeas petition in abeyance. (Dkt. 3). Petitioner
must file a motion for relief from judgment in state court
within ninety (90) days of receipt of this order. He shall
notify this Court in writing that such motion papers have
been filed in state court. If he fails to file a motion or
notify the Court that he has done so, the Court will lift the
stay and will reinstate the original petition for writ of
habeas corpus to the Court's active docket and will
proceed to adjudicate only those claims that were raised in
the original petition. After petitioner fully exhausts his
new claims, he shall file an amended petition that includes
the new claims within ninety (90) days after the conclusion
of his state court post-conviction proceedings, along with a
motion to lift the stay. Failure to do so will result in the
Court lifting the stay and adjudicating the merits of the
claims raised in petitioner's original habeas petition.
avoid administrative difficulties, the Court orders the Clerk
of Court to close this case for statistical purposes only.
Nothing in this order shall be considered a disposition of
petitioner's petition. Thomas v. Stoddard, 89
F.Supp.3d at 943-44.
further ORDERED that upon receipt of a
motion to reinstate the habeas petition following exhaustion
of state remedies, the Court will order the ...