United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER (1) GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO HOLD
HABEAS PETITION IN ABEYANCE (ECF #3) AND (2) STAYING THIS
CASE PENDING EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner
Charles Anthony Douglas is a state prisoner in the custody of
the Michigan Department of Corrections. On January 25, 2019,
Douglas filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(See Petition, ECF #1.) In 2015, Douglas was
convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct
(“CSC”), third-degree CSC, unarmed robbery, and
assault and battery. The state trial court sentenced him to
time served for the assault, ten to fifteen years in prison
for the third-degree CSC and unarmed robbery, and a
consecutive term of forty to ninety years for the
first-degree CSC. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed
Douglas' convictions, but it remanded his case to the
state trial court for consideration of the reasonableness and
proportionality of his sentence, which exceeded the
sentencing guidelines. See People v. Douglas, No.
327354 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2016). On October 31, 2017,
the Michigan Supreme Court denied Douglas leave to appeal
because it was not persuaded to review the questions
presented to it. See People v. Douglas, 902 N.W.2d
613 (Mich. 2017). On remand, the state trial court apparently
declined to re-sentence Douglas, but that court did appoint
appellate counsel for Douglas on November 2, 2018. In the
petition, Douglas challenges his convictions on the grounds
that (1) “other acts” evidence was erroneously
admitted at his trial and (2) the trial court's scoring
of the Michigan sentencing guidelines was unreasonable.
(See Pet., ECF #3.)
Douglas
has now filed a motion to hold his habeas petition in
abeyance while he seeks to exhaust state court remedies for a
new claim regarding the state trial court's failure to
re-sentence him following the remand from the Michigan Court
of Appeals. (See Mot., ECF #3.) Douglas also
submitted a letter to the Court in which he asked for
permission to attempt to exhaust certain remedies in state
court.
State
prisoners are required to give the state courts an
opportunity to act on their claims before they present their
claims to a federal court in a habeas corpus petition.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), (c);
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842
(1999). This requirement is satisfied if the prisoner
“invok[es] one complete round of the State's
established appellate review process.”
O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845.
To
avoid complications with the one-year statute of limitations
contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), a federal court may
opt to stay a federal habeas petition and hold further
proceedings in abeyance pending resolution of state court
post-conviction proceedings. See Rhines v. Weber,
544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). After the petitioner exhausts his
state remedies, the federal court may lift its stay and allow
the petitioner to proceed in federal court. Id. at
275-76. The Court concludes that such a stay is warranted
here because it will enable Douglas to attempt to exhaust his
state court remedies for all of his claims without fear of
violating the rule on second or successive petitions or the
statute of limitations. In granting such a stay, the Court is
not making any ruling that the motion Douglas seeks to file
in state court is permissible in that court or is otherwise
cognizable, or that his new claim(s) related to his
sentencing can be exhausted in state court. The Court holds
only that it will hold Douglas' current federal habeas
petition in abeyance while he attempts to exhaust his new
claim(s) in state court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Douglas'
motion to hold his habeas petition in abeyance while he
pursues possible state-court remedies (ECF #3) is
GRANTED. This stay is conditioned upon
Douglas fully exhausting his state-court remedies (if any),
including, if necessary, seeking timely review in the
Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court (in the
manner provided under Michigan law). The stay is further
conditioned on Douglas' return to this Court, with a
motion to re-open and amend his petition, using the same
caption and case number included at the top of this Order,
within 60 days of fully exhausting
his state court remedies. See, e.g.,
Wagner v. Smith 581 F.3d 410, 411 (6th Cir. 2009)
(discussing similar procedure). Finally, because Douglas did
not sign or date his current petition, he is reminded to sign
and date the amended petition before submitting the petition
to the Clerk of this Court. If Douglas fails to comply with
any of the conditions described in this paragraph, the Court
may dismiss his petition and/or rule only on his
currently-exhausted claims (if any). See Calhoun v.
Bergh, 769 F.3d 409, 411 (6th Cir. 2014).
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall
CLOSE this case for administrative purposes
only. Nothing in this Order or the related docket entry shall
be construed as an adjudication of any of Douglas'
...